PDA

View Full Version : The President is now King


the Talking Can
09-09-2005, 10:38 AM
rights...schmights (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/09/AR2005090900772.html)

Court Rules U.S. Can Indefinitely Detain Citizens
Ruling Comes in the Case of 'Enemy Combatant' Jose Padilla

By Jerry Markon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 9, 2005; 12:27 PM

A federal appeals court ruled today that the president can indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. soil in the absence of criminal charges, holding that such authority is vital to protect the nation from terrorist attacks.

The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit came in the case of Jose Padilla, a former Chicago gang member who was arrested in Chicago in 2002 and designated an "enemy combatant" by President Bush. The government contends that Padilla trained at al Qaeda camps and was planning to blow up apartment buildings in the United States.

Padilla, a U.S. citizen, has been held without trial in a U.S. naval brig for more than three years, and his case triggered a legal battle with vast implications for civil liberties and the fight against terrorism.

Attorneys for Padilla and a host of civil liberties organizations blasted the detention as illegal and said it could lead to the military being allowed to hold anyone, from protesters to people who check out what the government considers the wrong books from the library.

Federal prosecutors asserted that Bush not only had the authority to order Padilla's detention but that such power is essential to preventing attacks. In its ruling today, the 4th Circuit overturned a lower court and came down squarely on the government's side.

A congressional resolution after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks "provided the President all powers necessary and appropriate to protect American citizens from terrorist attacks by those who attacked the United States on Sept. 11,'' the decision said. "Those powers include the power to detain identified and committed enemies such as Padilla, who associated with al Qaeda and the Taliban regime, who took up arms against this Nation in its war against these enemies, and who entered the United States for the avowed purpose of further prosecuting that war by attacking American citizens.''

The decision by a three-judge panel was written by Judge J. Michael Luttig, who is one of a number of people under consideration by President Bush for nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.

dirk digler
09-09-2005, 10:40 AM
Now that I think about it that is kind of scary.

the Talking Can
09-09-2005, 10:42 AM
just a little...

NewChief
09-09-2005, 10:42 AM
Oh come on now, Can. It's for our own good. I feel safer already. Besides, we know the government would never extend this right to "normal" US citizens. Only terrorists.;)

Mr. Laz
09-09-2005, 10:45 AM
so what happens when the government decides that YOU present a national threat imagined or not?

NewChief
09-09-2005, 10:47 AM
so what happens when the government decides that YOU present a national threat imagined or not?


Come on Laz. Law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear. Why are you so worried? You hiding something, huh, huh? Maybe we should turn you over to the Ministry of Total Information for a background check and a little "stress and duress."

the Talking Can
09-09-2005, 10:49 AM
so what happens when the government decides that YOU present a national threat imagined or not?

you start crying...you're ****ed


the government can hold you - indefinetly - and without reason -....thanks, Republicans

Mr. Laz
09-09-2005, 10:50 AM
Come on Laz. Law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear. Why are you so worried? You hiding something, huh, huh? Maybe we should turn you over to the Ministry of Total Information for a background check and a little "stress and duress."
this administration is INSANE ... it's gonna take years and year to undo all the crap that they have messed up.

even their own republican party members are starting to realize how
f-ed up they are.


where's daddy bush when you need him :(




your boy needs a whuppin'

the Talking Can
09-09-2005, 10:51 AM
i realize this isn't as imortant as "POS Liberal PC Scumbags" or whatever....but it should give sane people pause...

NewChief
09-09-2005, 10:53 AM
i realize this isn't as imortant as "POS Liberal PC Scumbags" or whatever....but it should give sane people pause...

Come on man. It's the gays and pitbull haters and PC thought police that are ruining this country... rulings like this are just a front for the "real" problem.

Taco John
09-09-2005, 10:58 AM
No. This is a good thing. And any minute a "conservative" will be along to tell us why...

Taco John
09-09-2005, 10:59 AM
Come on man. It's the gays and pitbull haters and PC thought police that are ruining this country... rulings like this are just a front for the "real" problem.


No doubt... Some people have very goofy priorities when it comes to liberty.

NewChief
09-09-2005, 10:59 AM
No. This is a good thing. And any minute a "conservative" will be along to tell us why...


They're all suspiciously silent and absent right now. They must be getting their marching orders. Waiting for the blogosphere and talking points to filter down, so they know how to spin this one.

memyselfI
09-09-2005, 11:08 AM
They're all suspiciously silent and absent right now. They must be getting their marching orders. Waiting for the blogosphere and talking points to filter down, so they know how to spin this one.

But no one with anything to hide will ever be held. Only terrorists... so WTF is your problem? ;)

Rausch
09-09-2005, 11:24 AM
I don't see how Bush leaving office is going to prevent courts from playing "How much can we piss on the constitution?"

penchief
09-09-2005, 11:37 AM
I don't see how Bush leaving office is going to prevent courts from playing "How much can we piss on the constitution?"

No, the damage is already done. However, maybe we can stop stacking the courts with reactionaries and ideological clones.

NewChief
09-09-2005, 11:40 AM
I don't see how Bush leaving office is going to prevent courts from playing "How much can we piss on the constitution?"


Because the reason there's a ruling on this issue is because of Bush's policy. Bush -wants- to be able to do this, so he does it. Then the courts have to rule whether it's acceptable or not. If you don't have an executive branch that's constantly trying to stretch its limits, then the judiciary doesn't have a case to rule on to grant them these rights.

mlyonsd
09-09-2005, 12:07 PM
We're just watching taking down names to pass along.

Mr. Laz
09-09-2005, 12:09 PM
We're just watching taking down names to pass along.
look out everyone ... the Gestapo is in da houze :p

Bowser
09-09-2005, 12:10 PM
Wow. Between this and Eminent Domain deal.......

mlyonsd
09-09-2005, 12:19 PM
I'm curious to all the legal experts out there...

From a legal point of view is this different than the interment of Japanese Americans during WWII?

I'm not condoning it, I'd just like to know why laws weren't implemented since then to protect Americans from this.

BTW, I'll bet this isn't over and will be decided by the Supreme Court.

trndobrd
09-09-2005, 12:26 PM
They're all suspiciously silent and absent right now. They must be getting their marching orders. Waiting for the blogosphere and talking points to filter down, so they know how to spin this one.


Maybe they have just figured out that they need to carefully look at anything posted by Talking Can to ensure it wasn't intentionally misquoted.

the Talking Can
09-09-2005, 01:11 PM
Maybe they have just figured out that they need to carefully look at anything posted by Talking Can to ensure it wasn't intentionally misquoted.

uh...I cut and pasted an article....with a link...jesus

Rausch
09-09-2005, 01:29 PM
If you don't have an executive branch that's constantly trying to stretch its limits, then the judiciary doesn't have a case to rule on to grant them these rights.

Good luck with that...

go bowe
09-09-2005, 02:21 PM
I'm curious to all the legal experts out there...

From a legal point of view is this different than the interment of Japanese Americans during WWII?

I'm not condoning it, I'd just like to know why laws weren't implemented since then to protect Americans from this.

BTW, I'll bet this isn't over and will be decided by the Supreme Court.i'm no legal expert, but i did stay at a holiday inn express last night...

i really don't know the ins and outs of it, it's been so long since i've read those cases (and i'm too lazy today to go look them up right now)...

but one difference is that the wwII internment process included essentially all people of japanese ethnicity, based solely on their ethnicity, and involved the detention of what, hundreds of thousands?

the padilla case involved one individual who is being held not because of his ethnicity (whether you call it mexican or whatever padilla is, or call it muslim)...

but because of us substantial evidence that he is indeed a confederate of osama's boys (trained in terrorist camp, had plans to blow up things here in america)...

it's not for "no reason" as someone suggested earlier...

this ruling is not a good thing for civil liberties in a general and theoretical way, but it is very good law (from a legal point of view)...

as i understand the article (and i have not read the actual case yet), the congressional resolution gave the president all necessary and proper measures to fight terrorism after 9/11...

the court simply found that the military detention of even an american citizen under the circumstances and evidence presented in this case, was a necessary and proper measure (but, again, i haven't read the case yet)...

imo, it was a good decision, regardless of who wrote it...

(although the very notion of indefinite military detention of citizens offends my old law school sensibilities since in a sense it is a restriction of civil liberties)...

Logical
09-09-2005, 02:31 PM
Wow I definitely think it is wrong that they can do this with a Citizen, I have mixed emotions on non-citizens I am less strongly against it in those cases.

Braincase
09-09-2005, 02:44 PM
Good thing I just filled out the Fornication Consent forms.

petegz28
09-09-2005, 05:32 PM
Ok first people blast him for NOT breaking the law and forcing his way into LA to save hurricane victims as only a King would have power to do. Now peopel blast him for ahving such powers?

go bowe
09-09-2005, 06:23 PM
i'm curious...

what law would the president be breaking if he had immediately sent federal troops to conduct rescue and evacuations?

like he's doing now, for instance?

what law prevented him from doing that again? :shrug:

Hydrae
09-09-2005, 06:39 PM
i'm no legal expert, but i did stay at a holiday inn express last night...

i really don't know the ins and outs of it, it's been so long since i've read those cases (and i'm too lazy today to go look them up right now)...

but one difference is that the wwII internment process included essentially all people of japanese ethnicity, based solely on their ethnicity, and involved the detention of what, hundreds of thousands?

the padilla case involved one individual who is being held not because of his ethnicity (whether you call it mexican or whatever padilla is, or call it muslim)...

but because of us substantial evidence that he is indeed a confederate of osama's boys (trained in terrorist camp, had plans to blow up things here in america)...

it's not for "no reason" as someone suggested earlier...

this ruling is not a good thing for civil liberties in a general and theoretical way, but it is very good law (from a legal point of view)...

as i understand the article (and i have not read the actual case yet), the congressional resolution gave the president all necessary and proper measures to fight terrorism after 9/11...

the court simply found that the military detention of even an american citizen under the circumstances and evidence presented in this case, was a necessary and proper measure (but, again, i haven't read the case yet)...

imo, it was a good decision, regardless of who wrote it...

(although the very notion of indefinite military detention of citizens offends my old law school sensibilities since in a sense it is a restriction of civil liberties)...


I understand what you are saying. But it has been over 3 years. Don't you think that by now he could have been in front of a judge and either been convicted of a crime and jailed or found innocent and released?

Joe Seahawk
09-09-2005, 06:40 PM
i'm curious...

what law would the president be breaking if he had immediately sent federal troops to conduct rescue and evacuations?

like he's doing now, for instance?

what law prevented him from doing that again? :shrug:

I'm curious about this too.. I've heard somewhere that the State has to ask for assistance before the feds can mobilize? :shrug:

Why the State NG wasn't there sooner is baffling to me.

go bowe
09-09-2005, 06:51 PM
I'm curious about this too.. I've heard somewhere that the State has to ask for assistance before the feds can mobilize? :shrug:

Why the State NG wasn't there sooner is baffling to me.that's one way to do it, but there are other ways under the law for the president to direct fema and the military to take action regardless of what the state officials want to do...

that is in fact what the president did to the extent that he declared emergencies before the hurricane struck, without any requests from the states for assistance (so far as i know)...

as a result of the president's declaration of emergency, fema did move some assets closer to the gulf coast and there was some minimal involvement of the military, but mostly in a logistical support role (for what, a week?)...

turns out it was too little too late for the most part...

alnorth
09-09-2005, 06:58 PM
I'm curious about this too.. I've heard somewhere that the State has to ask for assistance before the feds can mobilize? :shrug:

Why the State NG wasn't there sooner is baffling to me.

The national guard is commanded by the governor for starters. The feds can formally call up a NG soldier, but thats a long drawn out process used for foreign conflicts. Other than that one exception, the Lousiana NG answers to the governor and no one else.

Bush asked the governor to allow the feds to take over, and she refused for a day or two.

Joe Seahawk
09-09-2005, 06:59 PM
that's one way to do it, but there are other ways under the law for the president to direct fema and the military to take action regardless of what the state officials want to do...

that is in fact what the president did to the extent that he declared emergencies before the hurricane struck, without any requests from the states for assistance (so far as i know)...

as a result of the president's declaration of emergency, fema did move some assets closer to the gulf coast and there was some minimal involvement of the military, but mostly in a logistical support role (for what, a week?)...

turns out it was too little too late for the most part...

It just seems weird to me that with a cat 5 bearing towards you you wouldn't mobilize your own, and maybe even a few neighboring states NG. The entire thing was a cluster fu*k and no public official should escape culpability. But IMO The Governer and the Mayor are the most culpable for ever allowing it to get to the point that it did..

Way too many people left stranded.. inexcusable.

Hopefully we have learned a difficult lesson and this type of thing will never again happen in this Country..

the Talking Can
09-09-2005, 07:03 PM
I'm curious about this too.. I've heard somewhere that the State has to ask for assistance before the feds can mobilize? :shrug:

Why the State NG wasn't there sooner is baffling to me.

the president does not have to be asked....the National Response Plan, which was created by the Bush Administration after 9/11, delineates the powers of the President and FEMA...he had the ability...

Joe Seahawk
09-09-2005, 07:07 PM
the president does not have to be asked....the National Response Plan, which was created by the Bush Administration after 9/11, delineates the powers of the President and FEMA...he had the ability...

He has the ability to send in the Louisana NG? Not disagreeing with you necessarily just curious.

Joe Seahawk
09-09-2005, 07:10 PM
Section - A. State and Local Authorities

State and local levels of government have primary responsibility for funding, preparing, and operating the services that initially respond to an incident. For example, State and Local law enforcement and health personnel provide the first line of defense in protecting critical infrastructures and public health and safety. Local police, fire, emergency medical, emergency management, public health, and other personnel are often the first to respond to an incident and the last to leave. In some instances, a Federal agency in the local area may act as a first responder to an incident, and the local authorities with the approval of the local head of the Federal agency.

As a State's chief executive, the Governer is responsible for the public safety and welfare of the people of that State or territory.

The Governer:

1. Is responsible for coordinating State and local resources to address effectively the full spectrum of actions to prepare for and to respond to man-made incidents, including terrorism, natural disaters, and other contingencies;

2. Has extraordinary powers during a contingency to suspend authority, to seize property, to direct evacuations, and to authorize emergency funds;

3. Plays a key role in communicating to the public, in requesting Federal assistance, when State capabilities have been exceeded or exhausted, and in helping people, businesses, and organizations to cope with disaters; and

4. May also encourage local mutual aid and implement authirities for the State to enter into mutual aid agreements with other States and territories to facilitate resource sharing.

114 page pdf
http://www.nemaweb.org/docs/national_response_plan.pdf

DanT
09-09-2005, 07:35 PM
that's one way to do it, but there are other ways under the law for the president to direct fema and the military to take action regardless of what the state officials want to do...

that is in fact what the president did to the extent that he declared emergencies before the hurricane struck, without any requests from the states for assistance (so far as i know)...

as a result of the president's declaration of emergency, fema did move some assets closer to the gulf coast and there was some minimal involvement of the military, but mostly in a logistical support role (for what, a week?)...

turns out it was too little too late for the most part...

Here's some info from an amateur that might be useful to you, go bo:

Governor Blanco made a request on the Saturday before Katrina made landfall in her neck of the Gulf and President Bush dutifully responded. You can find the documents by clicking on the hyperlinks here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/katrina/nagin.asp

However, the governor's request did not specifically ask for help from the Department of Defense with the RESPONSE phase of the disaster. Evacuation and life-saving happens in the RESPONSE phase. Sections 501 and 502 of the Stafford Act lays out some of the relevant law and the song-and-dance required between the Governor and the President:

http://www.fema.gov/library/stafact.shtm#sec501

Frazod
09-09-2005, 07:42 PM
Seems like as good a place as any to post this. :D

Joe Seahawk
09-09-2005, 07:42 PM
Here's some info from an amateur that might be useful to you, go bo:

Governor Blanco made a request on the Saturday before Katrina made landfall in her neck of the Gulf and President Bush dutifully responded. You can find the documents by clicking on the hyperlinks here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/katrina/nagin.asp

However, the governor's request did not specifically ask for help from the Department of Defense with the RESPONSE phase of the disaster. Evacuation and life-saving happens in the RESPONSE phase. Sections 501 and 502 of the Stafford Act lays out some of the relevant law and the song-and-dance required between the Governor and the President:

http://www.fema.gov/library/stafact.shtm#sec501


Thanks Dan.. Geez, is it any wonder it took so long.. :shake:

Wayyyyy Too much red tape.

DanT
09-09-2005, 08:20 PM
Thanks Dan.. Geez, is it any wonder it took so long.. :shake:

Wayyyyy Too much red tape.

Exactly. It's not clear to me from looking at the FEMA materials, including their online courses for emergency managers, exactly what language triggers the Federal government to recognize that the local government wants help with search and rescue.

I hope they get this nonsense fixed before the next calamity happens.

mlyonsd
09-09-2005, 08:26 PM
Exactly. It's not clear to me from looking at the FEMA materials, including their online courses for emergency managers, exactly what language triggers the Federal government to recognize that the local government wants help with search and rescue.

I hope they get this nonsense fixed before the next calamity happens.

We have a winnner.

alnorth
09-09-2005, 08:30 PM
The Stafford Act specifically appoints primary responsibility to the state and local government, any other disaster plan or directive is overruled by this federal law if and when a conflict with it exists.

If the state and local government believes it is overwhelmed and unable to handle the crisis, it is up to the state governor to ask for help. The governor can ask the feds to provide a wide variety of aid and even surrender control of the disaster relief to the feds, or the governor can limit the federal scope and retain the primary role of disaster relief.

The governor of Louisiana used the Stafford Act to request Federal help in setting up 6 shelters, some generators and staff to support those shelters, and about $2.5 million. THATS IT.

http://www.gov.state.la.us/Press_Release_detail.asp?id=976

Estimated requirements for other Federal agency programs:
• Department of Social Services (DSS): Opening (3) Special Need Shelters (SNS) and establishing (3) on Standby. Costs estimated at $500,000 per week for each in operation.
• Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH): Opening (3) Shelters and establishing (3) on Standby. Costs estimated at $500,000 per week for each in operation.
• Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness (OHSEP): Providing generators and support staff for SNS and Public Shelters. Costs estimated to range from $250,000-$500,000 to support (6) Shelter generator operations.
• Louisiana State Police (LSP): Costs to support evacuations - $300,000 for a non-direct landfall.
• Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (WLF): Costs to support evacuations - $200,000 for a non-direct landfall.
• Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD): Costs to support evacuations - $2,000,000 for a non-direct landfall.

Bush responded by asking the governor to let the Federal government take over the evacuation effort. She initially refused, and dithered for a while before relenting way too late to make much of a difference anymore.

trndobrd
09-09-2005, 10:46 PM
uh...I cut and pasted an article....with a link...jesus


Yep. Always pays to double check though.


http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2624440&postcount=7

DanT
09-10-2005, 11:20 AM
Exactly. It's not clear to me from looking at the FEMA materials, including their online courses for emergency managers, exactly what language triggers the Federal government to recognize that the local government wants help with search and rescue.

I hope they get this nonsense fixed before the next calamity happens.

Apparently, FEMA did understand that help with search and rescue was needed. According to this FEMA press release from Wednesday, August 31 (two days after Katrina's landfall in the New Orleans area of the Gulf), FEMA urban search and rescue teams had already started their work:

http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=18497


Life Safety Tops FEMA Priorities, Supplies Pour In


Release Date: August 31, 2005
Release Number: HQ-05-186

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Michael D. Brown, Department of Homeland Security’s Principal Federal Officer for Hurricane Katrina response and head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, announced that federal resources and support are continuing for states impacted by Hurricane Katrina, one of the most devastating hurricanes to hit the United States.

“The priority at this time is to meet the immediate life saving and life sustaining needs of victims in the impacted areas,” said Brown. “FEMA, along with other federal partners and state governments, is coordinating a massive mobilization of resources for urban search and rescue efforts, housing, food and medical care.”

Federal response activities include:

As of early August 31, more than 54,000 people were in 317 shelters. FEMA is working with a multi-state housing task force to address expected continued sheltering and eventual housing needs. More than 82,000 meals have been served in the impacted areas.
More than 1,700 trucks have been mobilized through federal, state and contract sources to supply ice, water and supplies. These supplies and equipment are being moved into the hardest hit areas as quickly as possible, especially water, ice, meals, medical supplies, and generators. It may, however, take several days for supplies and equipment to reach all victims because of damaged and closed roads and bridges.
Eighteen of FEMA’s Urban Search and Rescue task forces and two Incident Support Teams are working in Louisiana and Mississippi Eight swift water teams from California are also deployed making a total of 1,200 people conducting search and rescue missions. All 28 of FEMA’s teams are activated for response, with the balance staged, enroute or mobilized.
Fifty-one teams from the National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) have been deployed, including five Disaster Medical Assistance Teams (DMATs) that are supporting New Orleans medical facilities and hospitals not fully operational. These teams have truckloads of medical equipment and supplies with them and are trained to handle trauma, pediatrics, surgery and mental health problems. Additional teams are staged in Anniston, Ala.; Camp Shelby, Miss.; and Baton Rogue, La., and will move out as conditions permit.
NDMS has identified 2,600 hospital beds in a 12-state area around the affected area and is working with the U.S. Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs to move patients to these facilities.
USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service is providing food at shelters and mass feeding sites and issuing emergency food stamps, infant formula and food packages to households in need.
FEMA is coordinating logistics with the U.S. Department of Transportation and Louisiana National Guard in support of the ground evacuation of refugees sheltered at the Superdome in New Orleans to the Houston Astrodome in Harris County, Texas.
A team of 66 transportation experts is supporting state and local officials in the damage assessment of highways, railroads, airports, transit systems, ports and pipelines. The Department of Transportation is supporting detour planning and critical transportation system repairs.

...

the Talking Can
09-10-2005, 12:05 PM
Yep. Always pays to double check though.


http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2624440&postcount=7

oh, I misread a paragraph posted and quoted in it's entirety for all to read...hardly a conspiracy....it was the CIA chick qouted...ok...Iraq is now a success thanks to my speed reading...

go bowe
09-10-2005, 02:57 PM
Here's some info from an amateur that might be useful to you, go bo:

Governor Blanco made a request on the Saturday before Katrina made landfall in her neck of the Gulf and President Bush dutifully responded. You can find the documents by clicking on the hyperlinks here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/katrina/nagin.asp

However, the governor's request did not specifically ask for help from the Department of Defense with the RESPONSE phase of the disaster. Evacuation and life-saving happens in the RESPONSE phase. Sections 501 and 502 of the Stafford Act lays out some of the relevant law and the song-and-dance required between the Governor and the President:

http://www.fema.gov/library/stafact.shtm#sec501 fema also has authority under other statutes besides the stafford act, including the act establishing homeland security...

the president can order a federal response to a disaster without any request from a governor...

see condition 4 on pg. 9 of the national response plan:

Pursuant to HSPD-5, the Secretary of Homeland Securityis responsible for coordinating Federal operationswithin the United States to prepare for, respond to, andrecover from terrorist attacks, major disasters, and otheremergencies. HSPD-5 further designates the Secretaryof Homeland Security as the “principal Federal official”for domestic incident management.In this role, the Secretary is also responsible forcoordinating Federal resources utilized in response to orrecovery from terrorist attacks, major disasters, or otheremergencies if and when any of the following fourconditions applies:(1) a Federal department or agency acting under itsown authority has requested DHS assistance;(2) the resources of State and local authorities are overwhelmedand Federal assistance has been requested;(3) more than one Federal department or agency hasbecome substantially involved in responding to theincident; or(4) the Secretary has been directed to assume incidentmanagement responsibilities by the President. sorry about the damned font, i can't get it to behave...

go bowe
09-10-2005, 03:01 PM
here's the link to the nrp: nrp (http://snipurl.com/hhf0)

whoman69
09-11-2005, 10:51 PM
I don't see how Bush leaving office is going to prevent courts from playing "How much can we piss on the constitution?"
Had Bush not been in office, this would have never come to court.

Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.
Harry S Truman

patteeu
09-12-2005, 05:49 AM
this administration is INSANE ... it's gonna take years and year to undo all the crap that they have messed up.

even their own republican party members are starting to realize how
f-ed up they are.


where's daddy bush when you need him :(




your boy needs a whuppin'

George W. Bush ended the federal government's activities related to burning down church compounds with women and children in them the day he took office. I'm sure the next president will be able to refrain from detaining US citizens indefinitely without charge immediately too.

Amnorix
09-12-2005, 06:22 AM
Wow. Just wow. That's unbelievable.

the Talking Can
09-12-2005, 06:26 AM
George W. Bush ended the federal government's activities related to burning down church compounds with women and children in them the day he took office. I'm sure the next president will be able to refrain from detaining US citizens indefinitely without charge immediately too.

wow

there really is no limit is there?

you're are 100% bought and sold for Bush....

patteeu
09-12-2005, 06:36 AM
wow

there really is no limit is there?

you're are 100% bought and sold for Bush....

If you have to think Bush is Hitler or that he's somehow destroying the country to be less than 100% bought and sold then, yes I am.

But FWIW, I don't think the federal government should be able to hold Padilla without charging him with something, given the circumstances under which he was taken into custody. I support the Bush administration on their policy of detention for battlefield combatants and for non-citizens, for the most part, but in the Padilla case I have problems with their approach.

StcChief
09-12-2005, 06:40 AM
Well if he is King.
Then it's time to setup a
the 'French Razor' and start looping off heads.

Line up the Traitors and Liberals

Duck Dog
09-12-2005, 11:45 AM
A congressional resolution after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks "provided the President all powers necessary and appropriate to protect American citizens from terrorist attacks by those who attacked the United States on Sept. 11,'' the decision said. "Those powers include the power to detain identified and committed enemies such as Padilla, who associated with al Qaeda and the Taliban regime, who took up arms against this Nation in its war against these enemies, and who entered the United States for the avowed purpose of further prosecuting that war by attacking American citizens.''

If they were going after liberals who run their sewers about how evil America is, then half this board would be held.

Seems like if this was an abuse of power we'd have all kinds of people being held, not just one traitor.

Duck Dog
09-12-2005, 11:48 AM
George W. Bush ended the federal government's activities related to burning down church compounds with women and children in them the day he took office. I'm sure the next president will be able to refrain from detaining US citizens indefinitely without charge immediately too.

And swarming residents with federal agents armed to teeth to apprehend dangerous 10 year old cuban boys.

StcChief
09-12-2005, 12:06 PM
And swarming residents with federal agents armed to teeth to apprehend dangerous 10 year old cuban boys.

The was the previous Socialist admin.

Loki
09-12-2005, 12:16 PM
And swarming residents with federal agents armed to teeth to apprehend dangerous 10 year old cuban boys.

lol...
http://www.geocities.com/langston_hughes_amerikan_hate/elian1.JPG

DanT
09-12-2005, 01:05 PM
fema also has authority under other statutes besides the stafford act, including the act establishing homeland security...

the president can order a federal response to a disaster without any request from a governor...

see condition 4 on pg. 9 of the national response plan:

Pursuant to HSPD-5, the Secretary of Homeland Securityis responsible for coordinating Federal operationswithin the United States to prepare for, respond to, andrecover from terrorist attacks, major disasters, and otheremergencies. HSPD-5 further designates the Secretaryof Homeland Security as the “principal Federal official”for domestic incident management.In this role, the Secretary is also responsible forcoordinating Federal resources utilized in response to orrecovery from terrorist attacks, major disasters, or otheremergencies if and when any of the following fourconditions applies:(1) a Federal department or agency acting under itsown authority has requested DHS assistance;(2) the resources of State and local authorities are overwhelmedand Federal assistance has been requested;(3) more than one Federal department or agency hasbecome substantially involved in responding to theincident; or(4) the Secretary has been directed to assume incidentmanagement responsibilities by the President. sorry about the damned font, i can't get it to behave...

Thanks for the reply, go bo. Appendix 3 of the National Response Plan you cited is entitled "Authoritites and References" and contains summaries of applicable law. It is true that under particular circumstances, the President can order a Federal response to a disaster without a request from a Governor, but I do not see any law that says that it is always the case that the President can do that. The law seems to specify that a request from a governor is required in the sorts of circumstances that applied in Lousiana. See, for example, the description of the Stafford Act that is on page 79, quoted below.

114-page PDF file with National Response Plan (http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/NRPbaseplan.pdf)

2. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, 93 Pub. L. No. 288, 88 Stat. 143
(1974) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 5121-
5206, and scattered sections of 12 U.S.C., 16 U.S.C.,
20 U.S.C., 26 U.S.C., 38 U.S.C. (2002)), establishes the
programs and processes for the Federal Government
to provide disaster and emergency assistance to States,
local governments, tribal nations, individuals, and
qualified private nonprofit organizations. The
provisions of the Stafford Act cover all hazards
including natural disasters and terrorist events.
Relevant provisions of the Stafford Act include a
process for Governors to request Federal disaster and
emergency assistance from the President. The
President may declare a major disaster or emergency:
■ If an event is beyond the combined response
capabilities of the State and affected local
governments; and
■ If, based on the findings of a joint Federal-Statelocal
PDA, the damages are of sufficient severity
and magnitude to warrant assistance under the
act. (Note: In a particularly fast-moving or
clearly devastating disaster, DHS/EPR/FEMA may
defer the PDA process until after the declaration.)
a. If an emergency involves a subject area for which
the Federal Government exercises exclusive or
preeminent responsibility and authority, the
President may unilaterally direct the provision of
emergency assistance under the Stafford Act. The
Governor of the affected State will be consulted
if practicable.
b.DHS/EPR/FEMA can pre-deploy personnel and
equipment in advance of an imminent Stafford
Act declaration to reduce immediate threats to
life, property, and public health and safety, and to
improve the timeliness of disaster response.
c. During the immediate aftermath of an incident
which may ultimately qualify for assistance under
the Stafford Act, the Governor of the State in which
such incident occurred may request the President
to direct the Secretary of Defense to utilize the
resources of the DOD for the purpose of
performing on public and private lands any
emergency work that is made necessary by such
incident and that is essential for the preservation of
life and property. If the President determines that
such work is essential for the preservation of life
and property, the President shall grant such request
to the extent the President determines practical.
Such emergency work may only be carried out for
a period not to exceed 10 days.

the Talking Can
09-12-2005, 04:27 PM
Thanks for the reply, go bo. Appendix 3 of the National Response Plan you cited is entitled "Authoritites and References" and contains summaries of applicable law. It is true that under particular circumstances, the President can order a Federal response to a disaster without a request from a Governor, but I do not see any law that says that it is always the case that the President can do that. The law seems to specify that a request from a governor is required in the sorts of circumstances that applied in Lousiana. See, for example, the description of the Stafford Act that is on page 79, quoted below.

114-page PDF file with National Response Plan (http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/NRPbaseplan.pdf)

Dan,

The section "Proactive Federal Response to Catastrophic Events" starting on page 43 says this:

pg.44
■ Standard procedures regarding requests for assistance
may be expedited or, under extreme circumstances,
suspended in the immediate aftermath of an event of
catastrophic magnitude.
■ Identified Federal response resources will deploy and
begin necessary operations as required to commence
life-safety activities.
■ Notification and full coordination with States will occur,
but the coordination process must not delay or impede
the rapid deployment and use of critical resources.
support and incident containment capabilities.



and on page 9 is this..which may be what go bo posted:

In this role, the Secretary is also responsible for
coordinating Federal resources utilized in response to or
recovery from terrorist attacks, major disasters, or other
emergencies if and when any of the following four
conditions applies:
(1) a Federal department or agency acting under its
own authority has requested DHS assistance;
(2) the resources of State and local authorities are overwhelmed
and Federal assistance has been requested;
(3) more than one Federal department or agency has
become substantially involved in responding to the
incident; or
(4) the Secretary has been directed to assume incident
management responsibilities by the President.

mlyonsd
09-12-2005, 05:32 PM
Dan,

The section "Proactive Federal Response to Catastrophic Events" starting on page 43 says this:

pg.44
■ Standard procedures regarding requests for assistance
may be expedited or, under extreme circumstances,
suspended in the immediate aftermath of an event of
catastrophic magnitude.
■ Identified Federal response resources will deploy and
begin necessary operations as required to commence
life-safety activities.
■ Notification and full coordination with States will occur,
but the coordination process must not delay or impede
the rapid deployment and use of critical resources.
support and incident containment capabilities.



and on page 9 is this..which may be what go bo posted:

In this role, the Secretary is also responsible for
coordinating Federal resources utilized in response to or
recovery from terrorist attacks, major disasters, or other
emergencies if and when any of the following four
conditions applies:
(1) a Federal department or agency acting under its
own authority has requested DHS assistance;
(2) the resources of State and local authorities are overwhelmed
and Federal assistance has been requested;
(3) more than one Federal department or agency has
become substantially involved in responding to the
incident; or
(4) the Secretary has been directed to assume incident
management responsibilities by the President.

You guys crack me up. So Brown fell on the sword, should the mayor and governor as well?

the Talking Can
09-12-2005, 06:18 PM
You guys crack me up. So Brown fell on the sword, should the mayor and governor as well?

shhhh....the adults are talking.....

go bowe
09-12-2005, 08:28 PM
If you have to think Bush is Hitler or that he's somehow destroying the country to be less than 100% bought and sold then, yes I am.

But FWIW, I don't think the federal government should be able to hold Padilla without charging him with something, given the circumstances under which he was taken into custody. I support the Bush administration on their policy of detention for battlefield combatants and for non-citizens, for the most part, but in the Padilla case I have problems with their approach.yep, me too...

say, what exactly does bought and sold mean here anyway?

that you've been bribed to be a republican (and/or libertarian and/or independent) who supports bush?

how much was the bribe, anyway?

for the right amount, i could be a republican... :harumph: :harumph: :harumph:

DanT
09-12-2005, 08:41 PM
Dan,

The section "Proactive Federal Response to Catastrophic Events" starting on page 43 says this:

pg.44
? Standard procedures regarding requests for assistance
may be expedited or, under extreme circumstances,
suspended in the immediate aftermath of an event of
catastrophic magnitude.
? Identified Federal response resources will deploy and
begin necessary operations as required to commence
life-safety activities.
? Notification and full coordination with States will occur,
but the coordination process must not delay or impede
the rapid deployment and use of critical resources.
support and incident containment capabilities.



and on page 9 is this..which may be what go bo posted:

In this role, the Secretary is also responsible for
coordinating Federal resources utilized in response to or
recovery from terrorist attacks, major disasters, or other
emergencies if and when any of the following four
conditions applies:
(1) a Federal department or agency acting under its
own authority has requested DHS assistance;
(2) the resources of State and local authorities are overwhelmed
and Federal assistance has been requested;
(3) more than one Federal department or agency has
become substantially involved in responding to the
incident; or
(4) the Secretary has been directed to assume incident
management responsibilities by the President.

Thanks for the info, The Talking Can. Tomorrow, when I'll be at a faster computer, I'll look over the info on page 43 you cited. The info on page 9 does not seem to me to be a description of under what circumstances the President can authorize a Federal response without a governor's request. It only implies that there are times when the President can direct the Secretary to assume incident management responsibilities. I understand that there are particular circumstances under which the President is authorized to direct a Federal response to an incident without getting a governor's approval. However, I do not know of any law that grants him such a power under any circumstances present when Hurricane Katrina struck. Of course, I'm not an expert, which might explain my ignorance. ;)

the Talking Can
09-12-2005, 09:11 PM
Thanks for the info, The Talking Can. Tomorrow, when I'll be at a faster computer, I'll look over the info on page 43 you cited. The info on page 9 does not seem to me to be a description of under what circumstances the President can authorize a Federal response without a governor's request. It only implies that there are times when the President can direct the Secretary to assume incident management responsibilities. I understand that there are particular circumstances under which the President is authorized to direct a Federal response to an incident without getting a governor's approval. However, I do not know of any law that grants him such a power under any circumstances present when Hurricane Katrina struck. Of course, I'm not an expert, which might explain my ignorance. ;)

It's my understanding that when he declared the area an official disaster on Aug 26th he made it, according to the NRP, an "Incident of significance"...lol, or whatever the NRP calls it (I'm too lazy to look it up right now)...anyways, he set into motion a process which met the definitions (as defined by the NRP) that authorized him to "take charge" (or authorized him to authorize FEMA) without State permissions...the NRP is your typical bureacratic document, but I think it makes it clear in the "Pre-emptive" section I quoted..

this is important not only for the general question of leadership and responsiveness..but also because his administration created the NRP, and they "should" know what it empowers them to do...if it turned out they did less then they could have (as I believe) then that is a serious question to explore...they were also responsible for relegating FEMA to a sub-category of The Dept. of Homeland Security and appointing a unqualified political cronie with a faked resume to head it...again, it is reseaonable to hold them accountable for their management and decisions related to this...

I find it frustrating that no news agencies are discussing the NRP as it is central to Bush's plan to better "protect us" after 9/11....it seems as if journalists are too lazy to even visit their government's websites.

go bowe
09-12-2005, 10:06 PM
well, mr talking person...

while i can't seem to find the legal authority with a quick search, but one would presume that the government would not include a statement in an official document like the nrp that was not authorized by some law or executive order...

the fact that the nrp says there are other circumstances under which the president can order fema to act suggests that there is some legal authority for the president to do so...

but that's not saying the nrp itself is law, it isn't, but it is quite likely that it is an accurate statement of the law...

like i say, even though i can't easily locate the specific authority (although it could be the homeland security act), i'm pretty sure that the president has the power to order a federal emergency response to a major disaster even without a request from the governor under the stafford act, as described in the nrp...

EDIT: but it looks like the president's declaration came the same day it was requested by the gov of la (see next post)...

go bowe
09-12-2005, 10:43 PM
It's my understanding that when he declared the area an official disaster on Aug 26th he made it, according to the NRP, an "Incident of significance"...lol, or whatever the NRP calls it (I'm too lazy to look it up right now)...anyways, he set into motion a process which met the definitions (as defined by the NRP) that authorized him to "take charge" (or authorized him to authorize FEMA) without State permissions...the NRP is your typical bureacratic document, but I think it makes it clear in the "Pre-emptive" section I quoted..

* * *was it on the 26th that the president made the disaster declaration?

the fema website says aug 27 link (http://snipurl.com/hmv2)...

and the gov of la had requested a declaration of emergency on that same day, aug 27 link (http://snipurl.com/hmv7)

it appears that the president's disaster declaration was made the same day that it was requested by the gov of la, in response to that request...

Logical
09-12-2005, 11:09 PM
was it on the 26th that the president made the disaster declaration?

the fema website says aug 27 link (http://snipurl.com/hmv2)...

and the gov of la had requested a declaration of emergency on that same day, aug 27 link (http://snipurl.com/hmv7)

it appears that the president's disaster declaration was made the same day that it was requested by the gov of la, in response to that request...I only know that everything I have read is that Bush declared is a disaster area on the Saturday before the Hurricane, whatever date that would have been.

patteeu
09-12-2005, 11:14 PM
I only know that everything I have read is that Bush declared is a disaster area on the Saturday before the Hurricane, whatever date that would have been.

Hmmm. Does this mean that Talking Can lied? [/holding Mr. Can to the same nit picking standard he applies to Bush administration officials] :p

go bowe
09-12-2005, 11:14 PM
I only know that everything I have read is that Bush declared is a disaster area on the Saturday before the Hurricane, whatever date that would have been.yep, saturday, aug 27...

HutchFan
09-13-2005, 01:06 AM
No. This is a good thing. And any minute a "conservative" will be along to tell us why...

It's like this, if Bush doesn't detain this idiot and he goes out and blows something up or takes someone hostage or some other terrorist act, then you finger pointers on the left will say he should have held him. It doesn't matter what he does, you will still hate and criticize him. Some of you left wingers are even blaming him for weather patterns. The thing I like about him (even when I don't agree with him) is that he does what he thinks is right in spite of criticism and personal attacks on his intellect.

the Talking Can
09-13-2005, 05:19 AM
was it on the 26th that the president made the disaster declaration?

the fema website says aug 27 link (http://snipurl.com/hmv2)...

and the gov of la had requested a declaration of emergency on that same day, aug 27 link (http://snipurl.com/hmv7)

it appears that the president's disaster declaration was made the same day that it was requested by the gov of la, in response to that request...

you're probably right about the date...I was too lazy to look it up last night

the Talking Can
09-13-2005, 05:24 AM
well, mr talking person...

while i can't seem to find the legal authority with a quick search, but one would presume that the government would not include a statement in an official document like the nrp that was not authorized by some law or executive order...

the fact that the nrp says there are other circumstances under which the president can order fema to act suggests that there is some legal authority for the president to do so...

but that's not saying the nrp itself is law, it isn't, but it is quite likely that it is an accurate statement of the law...



yeah, I agree with this...though it would raise a whole new round of questions if they had written this document but not bothered to create any legal authority...almost as strange, and tragic, as appointing a horse whisperer to the head of FEMA....

patteeu
09-13-2005, 06:06 AM
It's like this, if Bush doesn't detain this idiot and he goes out and blows something up or takes someone hostage or some other terrorist act, then you finger pointers on the left will say he should have held him. It doesn't matter what he does, you will still hate and criticize him. Some of you left wingers are even blaming him for weather patterns. The thing I like about him (even when I don't agree with him) is that he does what he thinks is right in spite of criticism and personal attacks on his intellect.

I don't agree with the way the administration is dealing with Padilla, but I agree with everything you say in this post.

NewChief
09-13-2005, 07:10 AM
It's like this, if Bush doesn't detain this idiot and he goes out and blows something up or takes someone hostage or some other terrorist act, then you finger pointers on the left will say he should have held him. It doesn't matter what he does, you will still hate and criticize him. Some of you left wingers are even blaming him for weather patterns. The thing I like about him (even when I don't agree with him) is that he does what he thinks is right in spite of criticism and personal attacks on his intellect.

Ummm,

We're not asking them to release the dude. We're asking him to give the guy a freaking trial, convict his ass, lock the door, and throw away the key, just like we'd ask with any other American citizen that committed a crime. You don't just hold people indefinitely without a trial.

DanT
09-13-2005, 12:56 PM
Thanks for the info, The Talking Can. Tomorrow, when I'll be at a faster computer, I'll look over the info on page 43 you cited. The info on page 9 does not seem to me to be a description of under what circumstances the President can authorize a Federal response without a governor's request. It only implies that there are times when the President can direct the Secretary to assume incident management responsibilities. I understand that there are particular circumstances under which the President is authorized to direct a Federal response to an incident without getting a governor's approval. However, I do not know of any law that grants him such a power under any circumstances present when Hurricane Katrina struck. Of course, I'm not an expert, which might explain my ignorance. ;)

the Talking Can,

I looked over the "Proactive Federal Response to Catastrophic Events" section of the National Response Plan. The last subsection there describes how the Proactive Federal Response is to be brought about. Note that Stafford Act letters are expected to be in place. Here's a link to Governor Blanco's letter requesting Federal assistance: 4-page PDF file of Governor Blanco's request for Federal assistance (http://www.gov.state.la.us/Disaster%20Relief%20Request.pdf). It's not clear to me if and how the wording of Governor Blanco's letter affected the Federal response.

It seems to me that the various levels of government ought to have their sh1t together enough to work out how they would respond to easily forseeable disasters.

--DanT

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/editorial/editorial_0566.xml

Implementation Mechanisms for Proactive
Federal Response to Catastrophic Events

The NRP Catastrophic Incident Supplement (described in the
Catastrophic Incident Annex) addresses resource and procedural
implications of catastrophic events to ensure the rapid
and efficient delivery of resources and assets, including special
teams, equipment, and supplies that provide critical lifesaving
support and incident containment capabilities. These
assets may be so specialized or costly that they are either not
available or are in insufficient quantities in most localities.
The procedures outlined in the NRP Catastrophic
Incident Supplement are based on the following:
■ The pre-identification of Federal assets and capabilities;
■ The strategic location of pre-identified assets for
rapid deployment; and
■ The use of pre-scripted mission assignments for
Stafford Act declarations, or individual agency
authority and funding, to expedite deployment upon
notification by DHS (in accordance with procedures
established in the NRP Catastrophic Incident
Supplement) of a potential catastrophic event.
Agencies responsible for these assets will keep DHS
apprised, through the HSOC, of their ongoing status and
location until the JFO is established. Upon arrival at the
scene, Federal assets will coordinate with the Unified
Command, the SFLEO, and the JFO (or its forward
elements) when established. Demobilization processes,
including full coordination with the JFO Coordination
Group, are initiated either when the mission is
completed or when it is determined the magnitude of
the event does not warrant continued use of the asset.

the Talking Can
09-13-2005, 04:21 PM
the Talking Can,

I looked over the "Proactive Federal Response to Catastrophic Events" section of the National Response Plan. The last subsection there describes how the Proactive Federal Response is to be brought about. Note that Stafford Act letters are expected to be in place. Here's a link to Governor Blanco's letter requesting Federal assistance: 4-page PDF file of Governor Blanco's request for Federal assistance (http://www.gov.state.la.us/Disaster%20Relief%20Request.pdf). It's not clear to me if and how the wording of Governor Blanco's letter affected the Federal response.

It seems to me that the various levels of government ought to have their sh1t together enough to work out how they would respond to easily forseeable disasters.

--DanT

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/editorial/editorial_0566.xml

Dan,

There is a story that a report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) will be released on the issue of her request. Obviously, the report isn't out yet...so take this with a grain of salt, but it seems to be further confirmation that the President was legally able to act:

"The report found that:

*

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.




link link (http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Nonpartisan_congressional_research_report_finds_Louisiana_governor_took_nece_0913.html)


UPDATE

Here is the 27 page document in pdf...it includes the actual letter sent by Blanco, I believe (after a quick scan):

house.gov (http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/crskatrinarept91205.pdf)


the scan is hard to read, and impossible to copy/paste....you can read the conclusion on page 11.

DanT
09-13-2005, 05:45 PM
Dan,

There is a story that a report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) will be released on the issue of her request. Obviously, the report isn't out yet...so take this with a grain of salt, but it seems to be further confirmation that the President was legally able to act:

"The report found that:

*

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.




link link (http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Nonpartisan_congressional_research_report_finds_Louisiana_governor_took_nece_0913.html)


UPDATE

Here is the 27 page document in pdf...it includes the actual letter sent by Blanco, I believe (after a quick scan):

house.gov (http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/crskatrinarept91205.pdf)


the scan is hard to read, and impossible to copy/paste....you can read the conclusion on page 11.

Thanks, the Talking Can.

I understand that a request for Federal assistance was made by Governor Blanco and answered in a timely manner by President Bush on the weekend before Katrina made landfall in her neck of the Gulf. What I don't know about is how much latitude the President has to respond in such situations. It's unclear to me how much power the President has to provide assistance in domains that weren't specifically addressed in the Governor's letter.

I'm looking forward to reading that CRS report. They usually do good work, from what I've seen.

HutchFan
09-13-2005, 08:28 PM
Ummm,

We're not asking them to release the dude. We're asking him to give the guy a freaking trial, convict his ass, lock the door, and throw away the key, just like we'd ask with any other American citizen that committed a crime. You don't just hold people indefinitely without a trial.


When he signed on with the terrorists, he ceased to be an American citizen as far as I'm concerned. He doesn't deserve the same rights. He renounce them when he sought to bring harm to the US. By the way, if Mr. Bush didn't have something on him he would be walking the streets right now.

the Talking Can
09-14-2005, 04:57 AM
here's an excellent article from Knight-Ridder that has lots of information..even mentions the NRP...sounds like Chertoff may have dropped the ball:

link (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/12637172.htm)

Posted on Tue, Sep. 13, 2005

Chertoff delayed federal response, memo shows

By Jonathan S. Landay, Alison Young and Shannon McCaffrey

Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - The federal official with the power to mobilize a massive federal response to Hurricane Katrina was Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, not the former FEMA chief who was relieved of his duties and resigned earlier this week, federal documents reviewed by Knight Ridder show.

Even before the storm struck the Gulf Coast, Chertoff could have ordered federal agencies into action without any request from state or local officials. Federal Emergency Management Agency chief Michael Brown had only limited authority to do so until about 36 hours after the storm hit, when Chertoff designated him as the "principal federal official" in charge of the storm.

As thousands of hurricane victims went without food, water and shelter in the days after Katrina's early morning Aug. 29 landfall, critics assailed Brown for being responsible for delays that might have cost hundreds of lives.

But Chertoff - not Brown - was in charge of managing the national response to a catastrophic disaster, according to the National Response Plan, the federal government's blueprint for how agencies will handle major natural disasters or terrorist incidents. An order issued by President Bush in 2003 also assigned that responsibility to the homeland security director.

But according to a memo obtained by Knight Ridder, Chertoff didn't shift that power to Brown until late afternoon or evening on Aug. 30, about 36 hours after Katrina hit Louisiana and Mississippi. That same memo suggests that Chertoff may have been confused about his lead role in disaster response and that of his department.

"As you know, the President has established the `White House Task Force on Hurricane Katrina Response.' He will meet with us tomorrow to launch this effort. The Department of Homeland Security, along with other Departments, will be part of the task force and will assist the Administration with its response to Hurricane Katrina," Chertoff said in the memo to the secretaries of defense, health and human services and other key federal agencies.

On the day that Chertoff wrote the memo, Bush was in San Diego presiding over a ceremony marking the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II.

Chertoff's Aug. 30 memo for the first time declared Katrina an "Incident of National Significance," a key designation that triggers swift federal coordination. The following afternoon, Bush met with his Cabinet, then appeared before TV cameras in the White House Rose Garden to announce the government's planned action.

That same day, Aug. 31, the Department of Defense, whose troops and equipment are crucial in such large disasters, activated its Task Force Katrina. But active-duty troops didn't begin to arrive in large numbers along the Gulf Coast until Saturday.

White House and homeland security officials wouldn't explain why Chertoff waited some 36 hours to declare Katrina an incident of national significance and why he didn't immediately begin to direct the federal response from the moment on Aug. 27 when the National Hurricane Center predicted that Katrina would strike the Gulf Coast with catastrophic force in 48 hours. Nor would they explain why Bush felt the need to appoint a separate task force.

Chertoff's hesitation and Bush's creation of a task force both appear to contradict the National Response Plan and previous presidential directives that specify what the secretary of homeland security is assigned to do without further presidential orders. The goal of the National Response Plan is to provide a streamlined framework for swiftly delivering federal assistance when a disaster - caused by terrorists or Mother Nature - is too big for local officials to handle.

Dana Perino, a White House spokeswoman, referred most inquiries about the memo and Chertoff's actions to the Department of Homeland Security.

"There will be an after-action report" on the government's response to Hurricane Katrina, Perino said. She added that "Chertoff had the authority to invoke the Incident of National Significance, and he did it on Tuesday."

Perino said the creation of the White House task force didn't add another bureaucratic layer or delay the response to the devastating hurricane. "Absolutely not," she said. "I think it helped move things along." When asked whether the delay in issuing the Incident of National Significance was to allow Bush time to return to Washington, Perino replied: "Not that I'm aware of."

Russ Knocke, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, didn't dispute that the National Response Plan put Chertoff in charge in federal response to a catastrophe. But he disputed that the bureaucracy got in the way of launching the federal response.

"There was a tremendous sense of urgency," Knocke said. "We were mobilizing the greatest response to a disaster in the nation's history."

Knocke noted that members of the Coast Guard were already in New Orleans performing rescues and FEMA personnel and supplies had been deployed to the region.

The Department of Homeland Security has refused repeated requests to provide details about Chertoff's schedule and said it couldn't say specifically when the department requested assistance from the military. Knocke said a military liaison was working with FEMA, but said he didn't know his or her name or rank. FEMA officials said they wouldn't provide information about the liaison.

Knocke said members of almost every federal agency had already been meeting as part of the department's Interagency Incident Management Group, which convened for the first time on the Friday before the hurricane struck. So it would be a mistake, he said, to interpret the memo as meaning that Tuesday, Aug. 30 was the first time that members of the federal government coordinated.

The Chertoff memo indicates that the response to Katrina wasn't left to disaster professionals, but was run out of the White House, said George Haddow, a former deputy chief of staff at FEMA during the Clinton administration and the co-author of an emergency management textbook.

"It shows that the president is running the disaster, the White House is running it as opposed to Brown or Chertoff," Haddow said. Brown "is a convenient fall guy. He's not the problem really. The problem is a system that was marginalized."

A former FEMA director under President Reagan expressed shock by the inaction that Chertoff's memo suggested. It showed that Chertoff "does not have a full appreciation for what the country is faced with - nor does anyone who waits that long," said Gen. Julius Becton Jr., who was FEMA director from 1985-1989.

"Anytime you have a delay in taking action, there's a potential for losing lives," Becton told Knight Ridder. "I have no idea how many lives we're talking about. ... I don't understand why, except that they were inefficient."

Chertoff's Aug. 30 memo came on the heels of a memo from Brown, written several hours after Katrina made landfall, showing that the FEMA director was waiting for Chertoff's permission to get help from others within the massive department. In that memo, first obtained by the Associated Press last week, Brown requested Chertoff's "assistance to make available DHS employees willing to deploy as soon as possible." It asked for another 1,000 homeland security workers within two days and 2,000 within a week.

The four-paragraph memo ended with Brown thanking Chertoff "for your consideration in helping us meet our responsibilities in this near catastrophic event."

According to the National Response Plan, which was unveiled in January by Chertoff's predecessor, Tom Ridge, the secretary of homeland security is supposed to declare an Incident of National Significance when a catastrophic event occurs.

"Standard procedures regarding requests for assistance may be expedited or, under extreme circumstances, suspended in the immediate aftermath of an event of catastrophic magnitude," according to the plan, which evolved from earlier plans and lessons learned after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. "Notification and full coordination with the States will occur, but the coordination process must not delay or impede the rapid deployment and use of critical resources."

Should Chertoff have declared Katrina an Incident of National Significance sooner - even before the storm struck? Did his delay slow the quick delivery of the massive federal response that was needed? Would it have made a difference?

"You raise good questions," said Frank J. Cilluffo, the director of George Washington University's Homeland Security Planning Institute. It's too early to tell, he said, whether unfamiliarity with or glitches in the new National Response Plan were factors in the poor early response to Katrina.

"Clearly this is the first test. It certainly did not pass with flying colors," Cilluffo said of the National Response Plan.

Mike Byrne, a former senior homeland security official under Ridge who worked on the plan, said he doesn't think the new National Response Plan caused the confusion that plagued the early response to Katrina.

Something else went wrong, he suspects. The new National Response Plan isn't all that different from the previous plan, called the Federal Response Plan.

"Our history of responding to major disasters has been one where we've done it well," Byrne said. "We need to figure out why this one didn't go as well as the others did. It's shocking to me."

Chertoff's Aug. 30 memo is posted at www.krwashington.com

To read the National Response Plan, go to: http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/NRP(underscore)FullText.pdf

Knight Ridder Newspapers correspondents Seth Borenstein and William Douglas contributed to this report.