News US Hurricane Crisis: American People's View

  • Thread starter Thread starter NewScientist
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Hurricane
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the delayed federal response to Hurricane Katrina and the perceived failures of FEMA and local government officials. Critics argue that FEMA's lack of preparedness and the inexperience of its director contributed significantly to the disaster's aftermath. The conversation highlights the need for better disaster response planning, including alert systems and evacuation strategies, especially in vulnerable areas like New Orleans. Participants express frustration over the bureaucratic inefficiencies and the allocation of blame between federal and state authorities. Overall, there is a consensus that the response to the crisis was inadequate and that lessons must be learned to prevent future failures.
NewScientist
Messages
171
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I'm British and so my news feeds are perhaps biased but I was wondering what is the genuine feeling of the American people over the aid efforts (seemingly much delayed) and the conduct of Bush throughout the crisis? For it seems it took the US central government over 3 days to respond to the disaster and it is hinted (at least in UK) that this is due to the lack of involvement of the federal government in such matters and the fact that states have a great deal of autonomy. Is this accurate?!

-NS
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That's part of it, but FEMA is a federal agency and should have responded better. Its complicated - part of the problem was that the hurricane itself didn't do much damage to New Orleans, it was the flooding that took more than a day to manifest that caused most of the problems. The breakdown of law and order in NO due to 2/3 of the police force quitting was also a big part of it - the Red Cross, for example, was not allowed into the city because of the danger. Mainly though, there was no plan in place capable of dealing with a disaster of that magnitude.
 
FEMA is under the control of Homeland security. It is apparent (according to todays paper) That FEMA's ability to react has been affected by new methodologies associated with the Departnment of Homeland Security. Also I question the experience of FEMA's director. The guy has a law degree. His latest experience ( eight years) was running An Arabian horse trading company.

The flooding in NO could have just as easily been caused by an act of terrorism, ie intentional breaching of the levees.
If this is the best Homeland security is capabe of, perhaps Congress needs to rethink the relationship between FEMA and the Department of Homeland security.

Why was there no alert system to warn of a levy breach? Battery operated lights and sirens would have survived the hurricane. The flooded area did not fill instantly, people would have had time to get to higher ground.

Terrorist attack disaster drills have been held in most major cities.
Were there no flooding drills held in NO, the city most at risk of having it's levy system attacked by terrorists?

Billions of dollars have been spent and the only place that I have seen Homeland security in action is when I have had to take my shoes off at the airports.

The Homeland Security, FEMA, government bureaucracy has just pulled off the biggest screw up in the nations history.
 
The majority of the blame goes to FEMA, but also the gov. of Louisiana and the mayor of NO. The gov could've ordered the national guard into NO, and the mayor could have done a better job of fixing the leeves (years before the storm hit), because he knew that they could only take a hit from a cat 3, and also he could've had a plan to evacuate the poor.
 
solutions in a box said:
FEMA is under the control of Homeland security. It is apparent (according to todays paper) That FEMA's ability to react has been affected by new methodologies associated with the Departnment of Homeland Security. Also I question the experience of FEMA's director. The guy has a law degree. His latest experience ( eight years) was running An Arabian horse trading company.

The flooding in NO could have just as easily been caused by an act of terrorism, ie intentional breaching of the levees.
If this is the best Homeland security is capabe of, perhaps Congress needs to rethink the relationship between FEMA and the Department of Homeland security.

Why was there no alert system to warn of a levy breach? Battery operated lights and sirens would have survived the hurricane. The flooded area did not fill instantly, people would have had time to get to higher ground.

Terrorist attack disaster drills have been held in most major cities.
Were there no flooding drills held in NO, the city most at risk of having it's levy system attacked by terrorists?

Billions of dollars have been spent and the only place that I have seen Homeland security in action is when I have had to take my shoes off at the airports.

The Homeland Security, FEMA, government bureaucracy has just pulled off the biggest screw up in the nations history.

A hurricane breaking a leevee and a bomb breaking one are two totally different things. if a bomb busted a leevee, you would still have power to run the pumps and TV to get the word around, there would still be a police force... duering a hurricane, nothing is left. its like the stone age.
But still, it was a screw up, just not one having anything to do with a terrorist bomb, and yes the director should go.

Fibonacci
 
1 said:
The majority of the blame goes to FEMA, but also the gov. of Louisiana and the mayor of NO. The gov could've ordered the national guard into NO, and the mayor could have done a better job of fixing the leeves (years before the storm hit), because he knew that they could only take a hit from a cat 3, and also he could've had a plan to evacuate the poor.

How would ordering the national guard into NO have helped? How does a Mayor authorize a multimillion dollar project which falls under the auspices of the Army corp anyway? What is the National Guard situation in Louisiania?

I'm sorry, you should look into this froma factual standpoint before commenting. The Mayor of NO has no control over the levees. Funding has been allocated and deallocated for levee repair in the past by congress(the people who pay the Army corp).
 
faust9 said:
How would ordering the national guard into NO have helped? How does a Mayor authorize a multimillion dollar project which falls under the auspices of the Army corp anyway? What is the National Guard situation in Louisiania?

I'm sorry, you should look into this froma factual standpoint before commenting. The Mayor of NO has no control over the levees. Funding has been allocated and deallocated for levee repair in the past by congress(the people who pay the Army corp).
Ordering in the Louisiana national guard would help keep the peace, and the Governor can order in his/her national guard. It has nothing to do with the leevees, its the peace-keeping.

Fibonacci
 
1 said:
The majority of the blame goes to FEMA, but also the gov. of Louisiana and the mayor of NO. The gov could've ordered the national guard into NO, and the mayor could have done a better job of fixing the leeves (years before the storm hit), because he knew that they could only take a hit from a cat 3, and also he could've had a plan to evacuate the poor.

Not only that, but the Louisiana state government could have taken further steps to ease the intensity of the catastrophe at hand, by evacuating the people earlier (and not just a day before), or by getting FEMA and the National Guard to airdrop critical supplies in some of the key areas where no aid was being recieved.

Loading a C-130 with medical equipment and food, and dropping them via parachute so that the National Guard in the area can administer and regulate the supplies shouldn't be too difficult. I'm not sure myself if this was done during the aftermath of the storm (it should have been at least if it wasn't) because I haven't been closely following the news reports.

Then again, Louisiana is situated on the Gulf coast, and while it is as vulnerable in theory as other states like Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama, most of the emphasis on hurricanes is usually on the state of Florida, where the entire state is exposed rather than the southern edge of the state. In that respect, Florida's local hurricane relief and response teams were probably far better equipped, prepared, and trained rather than those of Louisiana.

Usually it seems that most of the time, when a hurricane hits landfall in Florida and passes through into the gulf, it normally doesn't regain strength to its former level, so those states (Louisiana etc) bordering the northern portion of the Gulf don't usually get the brunt of the storm.
 
1 said:
Ordering in the Louisiana national guard would help keep the peace, and the Governor can order in his/her national guard. It has nothing to do with the leevees, its the peace-keeping.

Fibonacci

Did you see the pictures of water up to the roof tops? The state had ~8000 national guard troops available---most of which were probably not on duty. How many do you suppose sought refuge out of state or had their phone lines knocked out or were in NO? New Mexico offered troop support on Sunday and Louisiana accepted but the pentagon was slow in getting the proper paperwork routed. This shows the Governor of LA was aware of the threat posed by the hurrican(it was a cat4 at the time) so your argument doesn't hold water.
 
  • #10
1 said:
The majority of the blame goes to FEMA, but also the gov. of Louisiana and the mayor of NO. The gov could've ordered the national guard into NO, and the mayor could have done a better job of fixing the leeves (years before the storm hit), because he knew that they could only take a hit from a cat 3, and also he could've had a plan to evacuate the poor.

Do you really think that the mayor of a city, which has one/third of its population living in poverty, would have had the funds to do this. The city of Detroit just had to fire 75 firemen due to lack of funding.

Regardless; the leeves have always been the responsibility of the Corp of Engineers which built them. The levels of the lake, the leeves and controlling the Mississippi river flow , are all a part of the shipping and transportation industry for the nation.
 
  • #11
motai said:
Not only that, but the Louisiana state government could have taken further steps to ease the intensity of the catastrophe at hand, by evacuating the people earlier (and not just a day before), or by getting FEMA and the National Guard to airdrop critical supplies in some of the key areas where no aid was being recieved.

Loading a C-130 with medical equipment and food, and dropping them via parachute so that the National Guard in the area can administer and regulate the supplies shouldn't be too difficult. I'm not sure myself if this was done during the aftermath of the storm (it should have been at least if it wasn't) because I haven't been closely following the news reports.

Then again, Louisiana is situated on the Gulf coast, and while it is as vulnerable in theory as other states like Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama, most of the emphasis on hurricanes is usually on the state of Florida, where the entire state is exposed rather than the southern edge of the state. In that respect, Florida's local hurricane relief and response teams were probably far better equipped, prepared, and trained rather than those of Louisiana.

Usually it seems that most of the time, when a hurricane hits landfall in Florida and passes through into the gulf, it normally doesn't regain strength to its former level, so those states (Louisiana etc) bordering the northern portion of the Gulf don't usually get the brunt of the storm.

Once FEMA took over, the LA national guard fell under the control of the federal government. The failings are at the federal level IMHO. Mississippi river levees are under the Army Corps control. The National guard fell under federal control when a state of emergency was declared. This was an engineering failure to begin with compounded by a botched response.
 
  • #12
1 said:
A hurricane breaking a leevee and a bomb breaking one are two totally different things. if a bomb busted a leevee, you would still have power to run the pumps and TV to get the word around
Fibonacci

The hurricane had passed before the levy breeched.

With no one evacuated from the city, and without previous disaster drills, A terrorist bomb destroying the levy would have only left several hours for the evacuation to take place. Only a highly developed and well practiced evacuation plan could have helped.
 
  • #13
Generally, it's a feeling of outrage.

There's a concerted Republican effort to blame the disaster on the Louisiana Governor and New Orleans mayor despite much evidence to the contrary. Pretty much all of the arguments above are standard Rush Limbaugh arguments. How this explains the bungled relief in Mississippi and Georgia is beyond me.

Bush gutted funds towards the Army Corp of Engineers in New Orleans for levee maintenance and disaster preparation.

Thousands of National Guardsmen, who are supposed to be stateside for just such an emergency, are stuck in Iraq.

Likewise he gutted FEMA, putting somebody clearing incompetent in charge of the whole thing. This is pretty much the opposite of what was supposed to happen after 9-11.

The federal government was officially in charge of the disaster since last friday, days before the hurricane struck.

There's a lot of anger. Many consider it at the very least gross incompetence. There's very much speculation in the United States and all over the world that much assistance was slow on purpose, because it was mostly black people involved, and so that Bush could get a big photo op opportunity when relief did arrive.

Since you're from the UK, I'm sure you've seen much of the same speculation in your own papers.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Previous research and a previous evacuatuion of NO indicate that not all residents would be able to evacuate under the existing plan.

Researchers have estimated that prior to a “big one,” approximately 700,000 residents of the greater New Orleans area (out of 1.2 million) would evacuate. In the case of Hurricane Ivan, officials estimate that up to 600,000 evacuated from metropolitan New Orleans between daybreak on Monday, September 13 and noon on Wednesday, September 15, when the storm turned and major roads finally started to clear.

Hurricane Ivan mentioned above, also turned and missed NO. Ivan hit last year.

http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/o/nov04/nov04c.html
 
Last edited:
  • #15
edward said:
Previous research and a previous evacuatuion of NO indicate that not all residents would be able to evacuate under the existing plan.



Hurricane Ivan mentioned above, also turned and missed NO. Ivan hit last year.

http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/o/nov04/nov04c.html

Yes, and every time there's an evacuation that turns out to be a false alarm, like Ivan, there's going to be less people that evacuate next time.
 
  • #16
motai said:
Not only that, but the Louisiana state government could have taken further steps to ease the intensity of the catastrophe at hand, by evacuating the people earlier (and not just a day before), or by getting FEMA and the National Guard to airdrop critical supplies in some of the key areas where no aid was being recieved.

Loading a C-130 with medical equipment and food, and dropping them via parachute so that the National Guard in the area can administer and regulate the supplies shouldn't be too difficult. I'm not sure myself if this was done during the aftermath of the storm (it should have been at least if it wasn't) because I haven't been closely following the news reports.

Then again, Louisiana is situated on the Gulf coast, and while it is as vulnerable in theory as other states like Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama, most of the emphasis on hurricanes is usually on the state of Florida, where the entire state is exposed rather than the southern edge of the state. In that respect, Florida's local hurricane relief and response teams were probably far better equipped, prepared, and trained rather than those of Louisiana.

Usually it seems that most of the time, when a hurricane hits landfall in Florida and passes through into the gulf, it normally doesn't regain strength to its former level, so those states (Louisiana etc) bordering the northern portion of the Gulf don't usually get the brunt of the storm.
Blanco had about 6500 National Guard troops available. Unfortunately, a lot of their equipment was in http://abc26.trb.com/news/natguard08012005,0,4504131.story?coll=wgno-news-1 along with about 3,000 members of the Louisiana National Guard.

Technically, Louisiana has to go through the federal government to request anything but pre-approved outside support.

NORTHCOM was ramping up on the 29th - Bush's declaring the area a national disaster the day before the hurricane hit was enough to put things in motion. Air Force units have to wait for an actual order before they can deploy. I think they have up to 36 hours to respond upon being called up for support (at least, that was the requirements for the squadron I was in in 2001/2002). They received a request for support on the 31st and had planes and medical personnel in place by the 1st (I think a few C-130's were among the planes, although most were med evac planes)

Governor Richardson offered the support of the http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/katrina_national_guard the day before the hurricane struck and Blanco accepted. Unfortunately, the support still had to be approved by federal offices in Washington. The approval came late Thursday.

Edit: If you read the Louisiana National Guard article, it's kind of ironic that the interim plan was to receive help from the Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida National Guard. The way things turned out, all four were hit by Katrina.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
NewScientist said:
Hi,

I'm British and so my news feeds are perhaps biased but I was wondering what is the genuine feeling of the American people over the aid efforts (seemingly much delayed) and the conduct of Bush throughout the crisis? For it seems it took the US central government over 3 days to respond to the disaster and it is hinted (at least in UK) that this is due to the lack of involvement of the federal government in such matters and the fact that states have a great deal of autonomy. Is this accurate?!

-NS
We are less than halfway through the hurricane season.

I am betting that if another city gets hit in a similar way, it won't take the US govt three days to respond in a huge way.

From that supposition alone, I would have to say that the slow reaction time New Orleans witnessed, had to do with lack of awareness on the part of the federal government, not clear division between state and federal.

Incidentally, we all thought that New Orleans had dodged the bullet somewhat, as of Monday mid-day. It wasn't until the water flooded, due to breaches, that it became clear that things were going to get worse in the days *following* the hurricane. People in the government may have breathed a sigh of relief when the storm turned. In fact, on your radio four today message board, you can see a post by American conservative poster "whatam," titled "there it goes" that was written in the hours between the hurricane and the flooding.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-perl/h2/h2.cgi?thread=%3Cmod.1125341920-18397.4%40forum1.thdo.bbc.co.uk%3E&find=%3Cmod.1125341920-18397.4%40forum1.thdo.bbc.co.uk%3E&board=today.3&sort=Te

Happy to report that New Orleans dodged the bullet once again. While this storm has caused a great deal of damage & displaced many people, the worst is over and the people of the Gulf Coast will put their lives back together as they always do after a hurricane.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18
Something I find hard to rationalise is this - hurricanes - in this time of year - in that part of the world are expected or at least anticipated. As a result, shouldn't the US (at every level) be ready to serve its citizens? instead of standing idly-by as thousands of innocent men women and children die.

I understand it is ridiculous to evacuate every time there is a risk of a natural disaster for this simply breeds impatience, but why was there not a rapid-response team in place? From what i have read, here and elsewhere, it woul dappear that the national Guard who would have performed this service where out of reach, occupied in Iraq or without equipment - surely as the state, or federal level, it should have been realized that this left the citizens wide open, and at the mercy of the elements - yet seemingly nothing was done.

I simply do not understand how such things happen - in a part of the world that has so much money and so many resources. One may comment if America watched its own back yard than everyone elses, the sprinkler wouldn't soak them through.

-NS
 
  • #19
NewScientist said:
Something I find hard to rationalise is this - hurricanes - in this time of year - in that part of the world are expected or at least anticipated. As a result, shouldn't the US (at every level) be ready to serve its citizens? instead of standing idly-by as thousands of innocent men women and children die.

I understand it is ridiculous to evacuate every time there is a risk of a natural disaster for this simply breeds impatience, but why was there not a rapid-response team in place? From what i have read, here and elsewhere, it woul dappear that the national Guard who would have performed this service where out of reach, occupied in Iraq or without equipment - surely as the state, or federal level, it should have been realized that this left the citizens wide open, and at the mercy of the elements - yet seemingly nothing was done.

I simply do not understand how such things happen - in a part of the world that has so much money and so many resources. One may comment if America watched its own back yard than everyone elses, the sprinkler wouldn't soak them through.

-NS

The war on terrorism is the short answer. Attention is being paid to 'foreign aggressors' in the likes of Iraq while the 'homeland' has been left vulnerable despite the passage of a sweeping 'patriot act'.

I mean "Who could have foresaw a Hurrican causing devistation?" Who?

NOTE: see other Katrina threads for the answer as to who could have foresaw such an occurance.
 
  • #20
NewScientist said:
Something I find hard to rationalise is this - hurricanes - in this time of year - in that part of the world are expected or at least anticipated. As a result, shouldn't the US (at every level) be ready to serve its citizens? instead of standing idly-by as thousands of innocent men women and children die.

I understand it is ridiculous to evacuate every time there is a risk of a natural disaster for this simply breeds impatience, but why was there not a rapid-response team in place? From what i have read, here and elsewhere, it woul dappear that the national Guard who would have performed this service where out of reach, occupied in Iraq or without equipment - surely as the state, or federal level, it should have been realized that this left the citizens wide open, and at the mercy of the elements - yet seemingly nothing was done.

I simply do not understand how such things happen - in a part of the world that has so much money and so many resources. One may comment if America watched its own back yard than everyone elses, the sprinkler wouldn't soak them through.

-NS

this wasn't a run of the mill hurricane.

My sister in law went through two of the major hurricanes last year in Florida. They "have it down" - how to prepare, how to clean up, the whole thing. The mentality became, around the end of September, "we're either preparing for a hurricane or cleaning up from a hurricane."

I expect that sort of experience plays into why we kinda thought this one would be about the same. We evacuated, I'm sure things were battened down tight, I'm sure people have water and whatnot stored for emergencies in case water treatment fails, and so on. THe problem was - this was so much more huge - and it *wasn't* because of the hurricane, it was because of the breaches.

I mean, the hurricane did tremenodus damage. But the problems came afterwards with the flooding.

I dunno. I think we forget to realize how many thousands of lives were probably *saved* because of mandatory evacuation and whatever emergency systems *were* in place.

As someone said elsewhere, one of the most tragic things is that it was those people who could least easily respond that were left to bear the brunt of the tragedy.
 
  • #21
faust9 said:
I'm sorry, you should look into this froma factual standpoint before commenting. The Mayor of NO has no control over the levees. Funding has been allocated and deallocated for levee repair in the past by congress(the people who pay the Army corp).
Not the city, but the state - the levees are partially a state-funded project. There isn't anything besides money stopping the state from building better levees.

And guys - the levee construction might be administered by the corps of engineers, but the work is done by private contractors.
 
  • #23
BobG said:
NORTHCOM was ramping up on the 29th - Bush's declaring the area a national disaster the day before the hurricane hit was enough to put things in motion. Air Force units have to wait for an actual order before they can deploy. I think they have up to 36 hours to respond upon being called up for support (at least, that was the requirements for the squadron I was in in 2001/2002). They received a request for support on the 31st and had planes and medical personnel in place by the 1st (I think a few C-130's were among the planes, although most were med evac planes)
.

Interesting thing about the Northern Command (same thing as Northcom, right?) anyway, they were completely ready to head to the area, vehicles fueled, planes on the tarmac waiting to take off, troops all geared up... the only thing they were waiting for was Bush's orders. Legally, they couldn't move until an official order from the CinC. They waited days after the disaster. Thursday they were still sitting there. I don't know when they moved or if they have yet. But they were pissed. The CO, admiral... I forget the name. He literally called Bush out saying when and if the president orders it he'll get there. The posted the actual quote and name in one of these threads a couple days ago.
 
  • #24
russ_watters said:
Not the city, but the state - the levees are partially a state-funded project. There isn't anything besides money stopping the state from building better levees.

Louisuania doesn't have a whole lot of free money laying around:http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/social-welfare-spending04/summary.htm

And guys - the levee construction might be administered by the corps of engineers, but the work is done by private contractors.

So what? The Corp is the one body that decideds who what where when why and how.
 
  • #26
TRCSF said:
Interesting thing about the Northern Command (same thing as Northcom, right?) anyway, they were completely ready to head to the area, vehicles fueled, planes on the tarmac waiting to take off, troops all geared up... the only thing they were waiting for was Bush's orders. Legally, they couldn't move until an official order from the CinC. They waited days after the disaster. Thursday they were still sitting there. I don't know when they moved or if they have yet. But they were pissed. The CO, admiral... I forget the name. He literally called Bush out saying when and if the president orders it he'll get there. The posted the actual quote and name in one of these threads a couple days ago.
Do you have a link to this? My understanding is that Bush can't just send them in without a request from the governor. This from Bob's link "They can only step in with medical and relief supplies when local and state assets are overwhelmed or exhausted." Would seem to support that.
 
  • #27
Skyhunter said:
Sounds like IEM has some great political contacts, a good company to buy stock in. (where is that tongue in cheek smiley :smile: )
I didn't find it at all funny. Maybe your sense of humor is a bit different then mine.
 
  • #28
kat said:
Do you have a link to this? My understanding is that Bush can't just send them in without a request from the governor. This from Bob's link "They can only step in with medical and relief supplies when local and state assets are overwhelmed or exhausted." Would seem to support that.
That's right, almost. The full quote was, "They can only step in with medical and relief supplies when local and state assets are overwhelmed or exhausted. The size of Katrina makes that an almost inevitable.."

Actually, the governor doesn't have any 'official' say in deploying active duty troops to handle a disaster. The federal government deploys them once the President declares the area a federal disaster area.

Bush made a very good pro-active move by declaring Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama federal disaster areas on Aug 28, the day before the storm hit. That should have made things flow very quickly. Unfortunately, there just wasn't a very good follow through. Anything that had to flow through Washington immediately slowed to a crawl.
 
  • #29
Oh look...
More changes..

Here's what the following page looked like before it was recently changed:

http://web.archive.org/web/20041126..._Releases/pressrelease060304_Catastrophic.htm (I just love the "way back" machine)

IEM, Inc., the Baton Rouge-based emergency management and homeland security consultant, will lead the development of a catastrophic hurricane disaster plan for Southeast Louisiana and the City of New Orleans under a more than half a million dollar contract with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

In making the announcement today on behalf of teaming partners Dewberry, URS Corporation and James Lee Witt Associates, IEM Director of Homeland Security Wayne Thomas explained that the development of a base catastrophic hurricane disaster plan has urgency due to the recent start of the annual hurricane season which runs through November. National weather experts are predicting an above normal Atlantic hurricane season with six to eight hurricanes, of which three could be categorized as major.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
Oh gee whiz...look who else is involved..


Clark, Slater working for crisis management firm of ex-FEMA director Witt
Associated Press | September 29, 2004


Posted on 09/29/2004 3:25:56 PM PDT by HAL9000



LITTLE ROCK — Former NATO commander Wesley Clark and former Cabinet secretaries Rodney Slater and James Lee Witt, all from Arkansas, are forming a crisis management dream team.
Witt used his experience running the Federal Emergency Management Agency to build a firm to help clients handle large-scale emergencies. The former Yell County judge and director of Arkansas' emergency management office, ran FEMA under the Clinton administration.

Now at his side at James Lee Witt Associates on a part-time basis are Clark, a retired Army general who unsuccessfully ran for the 2004 Democratic nomination for president, and Slater, transportation secretary under Clinton.

The Washington, D.C.-based crisis management consulting firm has about 50 employees and was founded in 2001.

Clark is a vice chairman for the company and will devote his work there to domestic and international security issues. Slater, who grew up in Marianna, also joined the firm last week as a vice chairman and will work on transportation and critical infrastructure issues.
 
  • #31
BobG said:
That's right, almost. The full quote was, "They can only step in with medical and relief supplies when local and state assets are overwhelmed or exhausted. The size of Katrina makes that an almost inevitable.."

Actually, the governor doesn't have any 'official' say in deploying active duty troops to handle a disaster. The federal government deploys them once the President declares the area a federal disaster area.
Do you have an official source to support this? I've seen several claiming this but it seems no one has supported it yet.
It being inevitable or not doesn't mean that States automaticly give up their rights to the Feds.
 
  • #32
I'm out of time this morning but I suspect some answers can be found here:http://www.ohsep.louisiana.gov/plans/frp2003.pdf
and more answers here:

http://www.cityofno.com/portal.aspx?portal=46&tabid=26

and here:
State Emergency Operations Plan
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
kat said:
Oh gee whiz...look who else is involved..

What are you getting at with all of this? Following all the associated links from your first post here to the IEM page to the press releases shows their press release to be unchanged.

Here:

http://www.ieminc.com/Whats_New/Press_Releases/pressrelease060304_Catastrophic.htm
http://www.ieminc.com/Whats_New/Press_Releases/release.htm

If IEM was contracted to develope a plan then I guess they will have to answer why things turned into such a snafu; however, we don't know the specifics behind the contracts as of yet. For all we know they did in fact develope a plan, submit said plan to the appropriate agencies and were done with it. Or, they may not have completed a plan(planning the movement os 1.2 million ppl could take some time) but were still within the terms of their contract.

None of this mitigates FEMA's responsibility in this situation though. Disaster plan execution is FEMA's domain even if an outside company was brought in for the development of said plan(development not execution).

As for the national guard thing:
http://www.arng.army.mil/about_us/protecting_our_world.asp

So, Mr. G is correct when he said the federalized disaster area resulted in federalizing of the National Guard for the entire area allowing for NG mobilization from other states to help the affected states.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
http://www.northcom.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.factsheets&factsheet=5 oh..one last one before I go:

The United States Congress has enacted a number of exceptions to the PCA that allow the military, in certain situations, to assist civilian law enforcement agencies in enforcing the laws of the U.S. The most common example is counterdrug assistance (Title 10 USC, Sections 371-381). Other examples include:

The Insurrection Act (Title 10 USC, Sections 331-335). This act allows the president to use U.S. military personnel at the request of a state legislature or governor to suppress insurrections. It also allows the president to use federal troops to enforce federal laws when rebellion against the authority of the U.S. makes it impracticable to enforce the laws of the U.S.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
kat said:
http://www.northcom.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.factsheets&factsheet=5

In fact the federal gov't of the US long ago scrapped the Constitutional Republic envisioned by the founding fathers which was intended to curtail the powers of central gov't and replaced it with a democracy which for the first 140 years of the republics existence was anathema to americans. Ref quote from President James Madison, one of the Founding Fathers,
Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention, have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
or one of my favourites
Benjamin Franklin once referred to a democracy as “Two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
For the past 70 years the federal gov't has been able to circumvent the constitution under the emergency powers act. A state of emergency was declared by FDR to introduce the New Deal and has been renewed by each president ever since then.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #36
kat said:
Do you have a link to this? My understanding is that Bush can't just send them in without a request from the governor. This from Bob's link "They can only step in with medical and relief supplies when local and state assets are overwhelmed or exhausted." Would seem to support that.

Gov. Blanco requested federal assistance on Sunday, before the storm hit.
 
  • #37
Fema is controlled by Homeland Security and Homeland Security does not need any requests or permission to prepare for an emergency. Neither did FEMA in 2002, before it was recently dissected by The Department of Homeland security.

The link below shows what Homeland Security had FEMA do in 2003 in advance of a category 2 hurricane.

With Hurricane Isabel's 110 mile per hour winds only hours away from the U.S. mainland, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has pre-positioned people and supplies for an unprecedented rapid emergency response to areas that may need immediate disaster relief once the Category 2 storm makes landfall.

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=1616

and in 2002

Prepositioned thousands of gallons of water and thousands of pounds of ice in case an emergency supply of fresh water and non-electrical refrigeration is needed.

http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=3785

What happened in the last three years to change this level of preparedness, and the pre-positioning of supplies? Budget cuts. Tax cuts for the wealthy, and an Illegal war in Iraq.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #38
kat said:
I didn't find it at all funny. Maybe your sense of humor is a bit different then mine.
But this is just business as usual for a privatized government. I don't find it funny either. Sarcasm is just a mechanism I use to help me cope with the reality of a corporate run government.
 
  • #39
Letter from the president to Homeland security: open for interpretation

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/reg-ii/hspd_5.pdf

I have posted the link below before so I am feeling a bit deja vuish.
Click on the link, then click on the link at the top of the page to see a power point presentation regarding FEMA.
Remember to click on each page to progress through the presentation.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:3Cw8xOM8GIkJ:www.hq.usace.army.mil/cepr/RoundTable/aciUPDATEsadMay01.ppt+FEMA+transportation+contracts&hl=en
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #40
Skyhunter said:
But this is just business as usual for a privatized government. I don't find it funny either. Sarcasm is just a mechanism I use to help me cope with the reality of a corporate run government.

What privitization, I don't see any privitization. :eek:

Conservatives make a fetish out of privatization of government functions; after the 2002 elections, George Bush announced plans to privatize up to 850,000 federal jobs. At home, wary of a public backlash, he has moved slowly on that goal. But in Iraq, where there is little public or Congressional oversight, the administration has privatized everything in sight

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0504-04.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #41
NewScientist said:
Something I find hard to rationalise is this - hurricanes - in this time of year - in that part of the world are expected or at least anticipated. As a result, shouldn't the US (at every level) be ready to serve its citizens? instead of standing idly-by as thousands of innocent men women and children die.

I understand it is ridiculous to evacuate every time there is a risk of a natural disaster for this simply breeds impatience, but why was there not a rapid-response team in place? From what i have read, here and elsewhere, it woul dappear that the national Guard who would have performed this service where out of reach, occupied in Iraq or without equipment - surely as the state, or federal level, it should have been realized that this left the citizens wide open, and at the mercy of the elements - yet seemingly nothing was done.

I simply do not understand how such things happen - in a part of the world that has so much money and so many resources. One may comment if America watched its own back yard than everyone elses, the sprinkler wouldn't soak them through.

-NS
As one can see from the posts in this thread, there are various reasons for the shameful state of things in NO. Interestingly, after the recent Tsunami disaster in Asia/east Africa, I wrote my representatives asking how well prepared the U.S. is for this kind of natural disaster. And as soon as the news began with reports of the hurricane, I asked how much assistance/aid would be offered by other countries, or if the U.S. would be on it's own because we are a wealthy nation, and have pissed everyone off. Interestingly we have been offered aid, for example: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/09/03/katrina.castro/index.html?section=cnn_us :wink:

First, Bush is responsible for the over-extension of our country overseas in an unnecessary war. This resulted in the lack of National Guard personnel and funds. Also, Bush was busy with his tour to pitch the Iraq war/attacking Cindy and the anti-war movement, so maybe this is why there were delays in federal approval of deployment and his arrival in the area? We've already known our homeland security is a joke. IMO Bush is not racist, just incompetent. The looting reminded me of the incompetency in Iraq. It's sad these folks in the south have to suffer through this to realize Bush's so-called religious fervor isn't the priority it's been made out to be.

Edit: And before anyone does it, this is not turning into another Bush bashing thread without reason. The media and entire nation are questioning his administration regarding this disaster, so get real and understand it is a legitimate factor in discussion of this topic.
 
Last edited:
  • #42
edward said:
Letter from the president to Homeland security: open for interpretation

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/reg-ii/hspd_5.pdf

I have posted the link below before so I am feeling a bit deja vuish.
Click on the link, then click on the link at the top of the page to see a power point presentation regarding FEMA.
Remember to click on each page to progress through the presentation.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:3Cw8xOM8GIkJ:www.hq.usace.army.mil/cepr/RoundTable/aciUPDATEsadMay01.ppt+FEMA+transportation+contracts&hl=en
Good info Edward. As I stated in another post there is plenty of blame to go around. This disaster was compounded by mistakes made at all State, Local, and Federal levels. I believe it is a failure of ideology not just policy.

My main objection to the conservative notion that government should be run like a business is that the primary concern of a business is profit. The primary concern of the government is the welfare of it's people. I just do not believe that these two separate goals can be made compatible.

Katrina IMHO, has exposed this for all to see.

As far as the blame game the president should just assume responsibility and put an end to it.

(4) The Secretary of Homeland Security is the principal Federal official for domestic incident management. Pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the Secretary is responsible for coordinating Federal operations within the United States to prepare for, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies. The Secretary shall coordinate the Federal Government's resources utilized in response to or recovery from terrorist attacks, major disasters, or other emergencies if and when anyone of the following four conditions applies: (1) a Federal department or agency acting under its own authority has requested the assistance of the Secretary; (2) the resources of State and local authorities are overwhelmed and Federal assistance has been requested by the appropriate State and local authorities; (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 responsibility for managing the domestic incident by the President.

Bush had all the authority he needed to do whatever was necessary. He didn't need anyone to request it. If this degenerates into a blame game he is also responsible for that. If he would just come out and say "I failed" he will earn a lot more respect than if he allows Rove to shift the blame to the State, Local, and Federal agencies.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #43
You guys are mixing and matching the military roles all over the place.

Kat has a point about active duty troops. They can't perform law enforcement duties except for a restricted set of situations, none of which were applicable to Katrina. That doesn't mean active duty forces can't respond.

They can respond to a natural disaster to perform humanitarian functions, such as search and rescue, medical teams, and medical evacuations, which is why it was important for Bush to declare the hurricane a federal disaster as soon as possible. That still doesn't give them carte blanche to just fly in and set up operations. They are still controlled by the federal government. The governor still has to tell the feds what she needs so the feds can give the military the orders they need and someone needs to figure out where they can set up.

In other words, it's possible the feds continually pestered Blanco about what help she needed and that she continually blew them off, saying she was busy with a disaster or something, or she continually put off giving them a place to set up or some other bureaucratic snafu, or the best place to set up still needed to be cleared of debris (it's possible an initial delay was preferable to chronic delays caused by setting up in a bad location - but hopefully the locals wouldn't then scream at the feds for something they would have known about and approved in advance). In fact, it's possible Blanco initiated the delay in deploying active duty troops, believing she had adequate National Guard support.

The National Guard has an entirely different set of rules than the Reserves or the active duty force. Louisiana Guard is under control of the governor and she still had nearly two-thirds of her troops state-side. The governor can use the National Guard for a lot more purposes than the active duty forces can be used - the Louisiana Guard could perform law enforcement duties. National Guard units from other states can be used, but then you have to go through the National Guard headquarters. It can be pre-coordinated. Louisiana had an agreement where they would get support from Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida National Guard units in the event they were hit by a hurricane before their equipment returned from Iraq. It can be "quickly" coordinated, like the support from the New Mexico National Guard, for example, even if the coordination at the headquarters end wound up being pretty slow for an emergency response.

In fact, just as Bush initially turned down international help, it's possible Blanco turned down all offers for federal help, believing they had it covered, and that Louisiana just sat there fat, dumb, and happy waiting for Mississippi and Alabama and New Mexico to send the National Guard units they'd promised.

It's hard to know exactly who caused things to move at a crawl, even though it's obvious someone did. It's just so easy to assume it's the Bush administration when the DHS head seems totally ignorant of anything that's transpired during the hurricane and the FEMA director's most significant qualification was his experience as commissioner of the Arabian horses association (or whatever the heck they're called).
 
  • #44
BobG said:
You guys are mixing and matching the military roles all over the place.
Thanks BobG, I think too many do not understand how things work.
 
  • #45
Evo said:
Thanks BobG, I think too many do not understand how things work.
Yes, thank you for BobG. That explains how communication and coordination can be so chaotic.

But isn't that part of the reason the Department of Homeland Security was created?

link provided by edward
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/reg-ii/hspd_5.pdf

Would you not agree that as the chief executive in charge during the creation of the department, the person responsible for appointing the Secretary of Homeland Security, and to stop the political blame game, Bush should simply assume responsibility and move the dialogue to finding solutions to what many, including myself believe is a glaring weakness in our ability to secure our homeland?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #46
BobG said:
In fact, just as Bush initially turned down international help, it's possible Blanco turned down all offers for federal help, believing they had it covered, and that Louisiana just sat there fat, dumb, and happy waiting for Mississippi and Alabama and New Mexico to send the National Guard units they'd promised.
.

Well, no, it's not possible. Since we know Blanco requested federal assistance before the storm hit.
 
  • #47
BobG said:
The National Guard has an entirely different set of rules than the Reserves or the active duty force. Louisiana Guard is under control of the governor and she still had nearly two-thirds of her troops state-side. The governor can use the National Guard for a lot more purposes than the active duty forces can be used - the Louisiana Guard could perform law enforcement duties. National Guard units from other states can be used, but then you have to go through the National Guard headquarters. It can be pre-coordinated. Louisiana had an agreement where they would get support from Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida National Guard units in the event they were hit by a hurricane before their equipment returned from Iraq. It can be "quickly" coordinated, like the support from the New Mexico National Guard, for example, even if the coordination at the headquarters end wound up being pretty slow for an emergency response.
So with 2/3 of the Louisiana Guard still state-side, plus units from neighboring states that could help, was equipment more of a delay due to the war? Sorry if I've misspoken about a diminished National Guard capacity because of the war if the effects weren't significant. In any event, it is disconcerting to see the poor response to this disaster, and it doesn't help knowing that our country is massively in debt at a time when funds are greatly needed to help people in our own country.

Edit: BTW, somewhere there was a post about police abandoning the force in NO, but I just read this is an unfounded rumor.
 
Last edited:
  • #48
TRCSF said:
Well, no, it's not possible. Since we know Blanco requested federal assistance before the storm hit.
The first article I can find in regards to the matter says that Blanco called the White House the morning of the 31st to ask for assistance and that same morning Bush authorized the Northern Command to take action. Blanco stated that the military will take over where her people had already been working. Seems to support what Bob is saying to me.
 
  • #49
Here's how the British broadsheets are presenting the story;

The Sunday Times - World

September 04, 2005

British tourists tell of their terror in rubble
Gareth Walsh and Dipesh Gadher
Caught in the crossfire

THE family of a British hurricane victim told last night how she and her boyfriend had been in fear of their lives as they scavenged for food while the authorities operated a shoot-to-kill policy against looters.
Tourists were forced to rummage among the rubble for food while dodging gangs and law enforcement sharpshooters. At the same time the American authorities were said to have blocked consular officials from entering New Orleans three times to help scores of Britons trapped amid the squalor.

The ordeal continued for tourists evacuated from New Orleans, who were initially told by Foreign Office officials who arranged emergency hotel accommodation that they would have to foot their bills.

Peter McGowan, whose sister Teresa Cherrie was trapped in the devastated area with her boyfriend John Drysdale, described yesterday how they had been reduced to looting to survive: “They are having to scavenge for food and Teresa is terrified,” he said. “At first it was the gangs they feared, then it was trigger-happy cops.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1763948,00.html

Internationally the general consensus is shock and disbelief that the administration which claims to be 'the leader of the free world' apparently couldn't organise a 'piss-up in a brewery'. :rolleyes:

‘STUFF happens,” said the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, when called to respond to the looting taking place in Baghdad after the American invasion. “But in terms of what’s going on in that country, it is a fundamental misunderstanding to see those images over and over and over again of some boy walking out with a vase and say, ‘Oh, my goodness, you didn’t have a plan’ ... It’s untidy, and freedom’s untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. They’re also free to live their lives and do wonderful things, and that’s what’s going to happen here.”

The official response to the looting in New Orleans last week was, however, quite different. The images were not of “newly liberated Iraqis” making away with precious artefacts, but desperate African-Americans in a devastated urban area, most of whom are making off with nappies, bottled water and food. So these are not scenes of freedom at work but anarchy to be suppressed. “These troops are battle-tested. They have M-16s and are locked and loaded,” said the Democrat governor of Louisiana, Kathleen Blanco. “These troops know how to shoot and kill, and I expect they will.” Events on the Gulf coast following Hurricane Katrina have been a metaphor for race in the US. The predominantly black population of New Orleans, along with a sizeable number of poor whites, was left to sink or swim.

Here is a very good article also from the Sunday times which is well worth a read. It is also particularly scathing when one remembers that the Sunday Times is a rightwing publication (owned by R Murdoch :rolleyes: )

The Sunday Times - World

September 04, 2005

Focus: When the levees broke, the waters rose and Bush’s credibility sank with New Orleans
The president tumbled to the epic scale of the disaster far, far too late, says Andrew Sullivan... cont'd
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1764115_1,00.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #50
SOS2008 said:
So with 2/3 of the Louisiana Guard still state-side, plus units from neighboring states that could help, was equipment more of a delay due to the war? Sorry if I've misspoken about a diminished National Guard capacity because of the war if the effects weren't significant. In any event, it is disconcerting to see the poor response to this disaster, and it doesn't help knowing that our country is massively in debt at a time when funds are greatly needed to help people in our own country.

Edit: BTW, somewhere there was a post about police abandoning the force in NO, but I just read this is an unfounded rumor.
A more accurate assessment would be a combination of Iraq and bad luck. If the Louisiana National Guard were at full strength, they could have responded better. If the hurricane hadn't also struck the states Louisiana was relying on to help them deal with manpower and equipment shortages, they could have responded better.

The deployed equipment is more significant, but being less than 67% manned is also a strain. I don't remember the exact percentages and categories, but for active duty troops at around 85% or less, people start getting concerned and around 70%, it's a problem that gets higher headquarters actively involved. In this case, the unit's fully manned, but can't perform its stateside mission at 100% capability.

The same problem existed with the Louisiana police force. The numbers were hugely exaggerated (some reported them missing 2/3 of their police force), but they were still severely weakened at around 70% strength.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
31
Views
9K
Replies
50
Views
9K
Replies
42
Views
7K
Replies
29
Views
10K
Back
Top