We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Red Cross and Salvation Army blocked A hat tip to Glenn Reynolds for this link to video from Fox News about the total incompetence of the state and local governments and their interference with those who could have given real help: The American Red Cross and the Salvation Army.
There really need to be some rolling heads in Louisiana and I suggest the Mayor of New Orleans be one of the first to meet “La Madame”.
Additional thoughts: If you remove all the weasel words and boil the whole strategy down to its essence, what the government plan in New Orleans seems to be is: starve and disarm the local american populace so they will make less trouble during the forced relocation program.
The job of aid agencies is to supply aid. It is not to tell people what to do. It is not to kidnap people from their homes. It is not to violate their Second Amendment rights and steal their property. It is not to prevent people from creating spontaneous order. It is not to prevent those who attempt to evacuate themselves from doing so.
Perhaps I can get some sleep now.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
And all the while Brownie was doing a heck of a job.
I didn’t watch the video, but the last I heard it was the Louisiana (state) Department of Homeland Security that blocked the Red Cross, although they might have done that under FEMA’s direction. If it’s the state DHS, that would be Blanco’s responsibility, not Nagin’s.
Ha, beatcha to it…
Yeah. As I said in my post yesterday, I’m a medievalist.
Medievalists have a word for this: SIEGE.
Hi, we’re the government, and we don’t care if you die of heat stroke, so long as you do what we say!
Nagin and Blanco are turning on each other.
What is still perplexing me about this matter is this – how is FEMA’s role defined? Is it actually a Federal Emergency Management system, in which case surely it has remit above and beyond any local authority and thus should be able to override corrupt, incompetent or just plain cowardly local sherrifs, mayors, state governors etc.?
As they say … oops!
What is still perplexing me about this matter is this – how is FEMA’s role defined? Is it actually a Federal Emergency Management system, in which case surely it has remit above and beyond any local authority and thus should be able to override corrupt, incompetent or just plain cowardly local sherrifs, mayors, state governors etc.?
Nope. In the US, State governments are not subordinate to the Federal government- certain powers are reserved to the Federal government (imposing tariffs, making treaties, minting currency, etc), but other powers are reserved to the States. It’s complicated and confusing and some of the specifics seem odd from a 21st century perspective… but the result is that a State governor can deny the Federal government the legal authority to do certain things in that state.
Ah, I had the impression that FEMA was some kind of centralised agency that could step in and resolve a national disaster without the toing and froing of regular bureacratic incompetence.
Too many hours spent playing Deus Ex I’m afraid.
An interesting programme on BBC R4 today called “A word in your ear” – compiled from US radio broadcasts in the aftermath of Katrina.
A word in your ear
Not much new except for an interesting segment towards the end about efforts to set up a low power radio station inside the Houston Astrodome tokeep those camping there informed. This appears to have been frustrated by the owners of the Dome not governmetn, who appear to be worried that if the people camped out hear something they don’t like they might try to complain…
They have also prevented the distribution of 10,000 donated radios.
I know that some here will say this is thier property, but I’m assuming someone has taken a lease or is otherwise paying for the use of the facilities which surely gives them some property rights. Nor do I see how any property rights can extend into denying access to information.
Some with greater skills than me may be able to provide a link to the specific segment. This will I think only be up for a week until the next programme comes along.
Personally, I’m holding the feds more responsible becuase I’m not suicidal.
City and state authorities just don’t have the resources to deal with a catastrophe like Katrina–when something like that hits, you need a team that specializes in crisis. The Department of Homeland Security is supposed to be that team, and since 9/11 we’re supposed to have been preparing that kind of expertise.
I’m confused–I’ve never seen a mayor run on a platform of “I’ll keep you safe in a massive crisis”–they talk about stuff like schools and street crime. OTOH, the president ran on a platform of “I’ll keep you safe in a crisis.”
Don’t tell me this isn’t his job. It’s his job. If he wants to outsource it to the states, fine, but it’s still gotta get done and done right, and if it doesn’t it’s on the President’s head.
Theorajones,
Your points make me wonder if we did/do have a major act of terrorism, is this what we can expect? Totalitarian marshal law as an overriding priority and little else?
How is the response to Katrina fundamentally different from the response to a terrorist attack?
Theora: The US isn’t put together that way. It is a Federation of independent States. The Federal Government may only operate inside the States within strict legal and constitutional limits.
We’ve damn well lost enough of States Rights. I’m not willing to see the rest of it go down the tubes. Far more people have fought and died to defend our liberty than an occasional natural disaster might kill. In any case, I am not willing to see us breach the wall that lets Federal troops operate at will within the continental USA. I do not care how much you like or dislike George. ,George is for 8 years. The principle of seperation of powers between the States and the Federal Government is something we might like to have around 25 or 50 or 100 or 300 years hence as a means to block tyranny.
Check this out.
Hi Dale.
I agree very deeply with your point. Repealing the 27th amendment would be a huge step in the right direction. Furthermore, I believe that at every level in this disaster, government has made things worse. I definitely include FEMA in that. I think it should be apparent now that the purpose of this agency is not to help citizens, but rather to consolidate and exercise government control.
It’s obvious already that private response ranging from ARC to strangers on the street did more than anything the governments did except for the very visible helicopters. The private air boat associations in Florida and Louisiana both attempted to do that work but were forcibly prevented.
However, I had a feeling that something is being overlooked here, that TheoraJones point has been considered a valid one historically. I decided to look up and see how much the president could have and should have done under the laws available.
This is from a book titled Military Government and Martial Law by William E. Birkhimer, LLB, Major, General Staff, US Army
http://www.icresource.com/LegalResearch/PDF/MilitaryGovernmentMartial.pdf(Link)
Paragraph 499 discusses the use of the military to establish martial law. I believe it was re-written to cover the situation regarding the rebellion and reconstruction of the southern states. It has been used since then for many things. Things as diverse as quarantine and executing warrants. The author also refers to “in various other ways.” I believe it is available for geographic natural disasters as well as afore mentioned epidemiological ones.
“Paragraph 499 When local authorities fail, President authorized by law to use military power. –
… There are numerous other provisions of the Federal laws authorizing the employment of the military for national purposes, such as to enforce the neutrality {8} and quarantine laws, {9} to execute United States warrants or other lawful process in certain cases, {10} for many purposes in the Indian country, {11} and in various other ways.”
And this paragraph pretty well says what it says.
“Paragraph 501 In Federal matters, President in dependent State authorities. –
When the President proceeds to use the military power of the nation for the objects mentioned, he does it independently of State authorities. When necessary, he moves troops to the threatened district. It may be against the protests of the State authorities. He uses the requisite force to sustain the law, suppress rebellion, or to repel invasion. The law intrusts to his judgment the determination of the question how much force the occasion demands. He is expected to meet the crisis. He takes his measures accordingly, and if the condition of affairs be such as heretofore in this work has been pointed out as justifying the enforcement of martial law, it will be his duty to enforce it {12}”
I should add, my understanding is that the above applies to the use of military to “sustain the law, supress rebellion”.
Had it been used for this, private relief could have functioned safely and the apparent refusal of the Gov. of LA to invoke the Stafford Act would have had far less consequence.
Also, this power exists precisely because southern state and municipal law enforcement was breaking the law after the civil war.
It seems that almost the entire problem in NO has been one of law enforcement and government missconduct. This was the tool that handled that in the past.
Bah. The plain fact of the matter is that the city officials didn’t follow THEIR OWN PLAN to evacuate the city, and the state was slow to respond with its own resources — all long before the Feds stepped in.
Let’s just remember that the last major storm of this magnitude in the United States saw Federal assistance start trickling in a full NINE DAYS after catastrophe struck.
I don’t remember the year, but it was during the Clinton presidency — no doubt the reason why this hasn’t been pointed out yet.
Kim: you are probably thinking about Andrew.
Midwesterner: there is a fundamental difference between a terrorist/outside military attack and a natural disaster, in that the former threatens the entire country. This, it seems to me, is the sole justification for the idea that the defence against external threats is left to the federal government, and that it should override state and local governments. In the case of a natural disaster, however severe, it should be the responsibility of the local authorities to protect it’s citizens, and, if necessary, to request an outside help.
No, Alisa. The Civil War was the all time biggest example of marshal law. First, at no time did secession or the southern states threaten the entire country. Not unless you assume there is sovereignty of one state over another. Unless you are willing to believe the northern states were entitled to the benefits of having the southern states in the union. The civil war was about the failure or inability of the southern states to enforce the constitution and the laws of congress.
While an external threat was an appropriate grounds for a declaration of martial law (e.g. New Orleans 1814-1815), it was far from the only justification.
It is the “the responsibility of the local authorities to protect it’s citizens”. However, the president is expected to enforce the constitution and the laws of congress anytime a lower authority is unwilling or unable to do so. This has been the belief and practice ever since the civil war and this has been interpreted to extend to much more than secession and external threat.
The grounds behind acceptance of the president’s power in declaring martial law is that the constitution states he “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed”.
There was actually a school of debate over whether congress could also declare marshal law. That’s a whole separate debate and is less certain but far more sweeping when it does occur.
In summary, there is already enough power in Washington. To declare that there isn’t enough is short sighted, at best.
Now for my rant.
Just because the “bad guys” are screwing up at the state and local level and it’s the “good guys” screwing up at the federal level you all are sitting around bleating “There was nothing the feds could do! There was nothing the feds could do!” Let’s all chant it together now, “There was nothing the Feds could do!”
What do you think is going to be the consequence of this perception? What has ALWAYS been the consequence in these situations? An act of congress! More power to the feds! Less liberty for states and inevitably, individuals. How many of you consider the Homeland Security Act to be a great step for liberty?!
This was a MASSIVE disaster and it WILL generate legislation!
One day there won’t be your ‘stalwart defender of individual liberty’ in the Whitehouse, you’ll wake up somewhere with a knot on your head and federal cuffs on your wrists moaning “wah happened?”
We’ll have lost what’s left of the de facto competition for citizens that currently keeps excessive state government in check. People and businesses can still vote with their feet. When these excesses occur at the federal level, then what? Then where?
And I’ll find precious little comfort in saying “Told ya so.”
People, get your heads out of your political burkas and look over your shoulders!
Midwesterner, I never said that an external threat is the only time federal intervention is warranted, I was simply answering your question in one of your previous posts “how is a terrorist attack different from a natural disaster” (I don’t remember the exact words you used). I also never said that the feds should be absolved of all responsibility in this current fiasco. There is probably enough blame to go around all the way from the local bottom to the federal top, possibly even Bush. Still, my common sense tells me that in a local emergency it’s the local government that should step in, at least initially. And, “stepping in” should obviously include asking for help from whoever might be able to provide it, be it Washington, or Mexico, rules and procedures be damned.
What you seem to be saying is that the moment Bush realized that LA and NO authorities are not doing their job, he should have stepped in. The question is, (since everyone seems to agree that he did this, but way too late), when did he realize this, and was there any way for him to realize this sooner than he did?
Hi Alisa. Thank you. I misunderstood your post to be responding to my most recent one and endorsing Kim’s inference that the Feds lacked the legal avenues to respond.
My concern with the difference between terrorism and hurricane responses in the earlier post was meant to query what we can expect to see in the realm actual results. I miss-phrased it when I said ‘fundamental’. In light of what we’ve seen, I don’t think plan ‘b’, the feds, is much of a back up to plan ‘a’ the Guilianis’, etc of state and local government. We have to make sure we oppose the idea that when local power fails, giving feds yet more power is the solution. The role of the feds (army) should be to protect and defend life liberty and property (and private relief efforts) until state and local government is willing and able to take back this function.
“was there any way for him to realize this sooner than he did?”
It appears that the president should have realized that many of his appointees would be unable to handle this. Brown’s greatest job accomplishment appears to be judging horses. Bush, like all of his predecessors, apparently also handed out important appointments like candy to political benefactors. This is traditional and is, I think, the reason he doesn’t want things to degenerate into finger pointing.
I watched someone who has been supervising modeling of NO/hurricanes at the university that now sits underwater (Tulane). He says they have been trying to tell federal officials for some time now that a serious hurricane would top the big primary levees. He said nobody could seem to get their heads around what that meant. New Orleans, hard as it is to imagine, did get off easy. Had that surge hit NO with it’s full force, it would have topped the levees with a seemingly infinite supply of water and filled it to a height above the big levees. The devastation would have been beyond comprehension. You or someone else earlier helped me to realize that the original expectation was that the storm would be west of the city. Clearly, ‘professional’ emergency planners should have anticipated the doomsday scenario at least 2 days in advance and started regular army rolling and emergency federal call ups of the national guards. No local government or state government could ever cope with a hit of that magnitude. Look at the population distribution(PDF) of LA. Except for Shreveport, virtually all of Louisiana’s population was in the probable path of the hurricane. Regular army could have been moving through and around the storm inland to get there. Then, whether or not a governor invoked Stafford, they would have been there to do something. Options would have been available. And seriously, Kim, are you saying that 9 days is an adequate response had it been an act of major terrorism? Is this really an acceptable benchmark? This is what we have to look forward to? Finger pointing and photo ops?
The feds have plenty of power. They had 2 to 3 days pre hurricane knowledge of what the magnitude would likely be. They had the constitutional authority (and responsibility) to protect citizens, property and rescuers. They knew (or should have) that infrastructure could be totally destroyed.
I think you are right.
Can we have a fine system for every use of the word MARSHAL or MARSHALL law instead of the correct spelling MARTIAL.
Its just something that really irks me …
Darn. How embarassing. Thank you, Julian.
Red Cross: “It Was Not Safe To Be In The City” (Video).
In a Larry King interview on Sept 2nd, Red Cross CEO Marsha Evans explained that the Red Cross were not in New Orleans because it was unsafe.
“It was unsafe to be in the city.”
“…it was not safe to be in the city, and it’s not been safe to go back into the city.”
According to other reports, Red Cross workers could have been shot or have contracted disease if they entered New Orleans in the first days after the storm.
In addition, Evans mentioned concerns that relocating in the city would delay evacuation.
“They were also concerned that if we located, relocated back into the city, people wouldn’t leave, and they’ve got to leave.”
However, many reporters and news sources have failed to acknowledge the safety/security aspects of Marsha Evan’s explanation (an exception being Bill O’Reilly at Fox News).
It is not yet clear whether or not the Red Cross would have entered the city early on, given these serious safety risks, even if they had not been asked to stay out by the National Guard, the city and State emergency management.
A relevant video clip from the Larry King interview can be found at this (liberal) site:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200509090002
MP
The Florida Airboat Association was responsible for getting over 100 civilian airboaters into New Orleans despite the bureaucratic boondoggle.
It should be understood that the whole New Orleans fiasco was not the fault of the federal government. Rather, the responsibility lies with the Louisiana state government and Governor Blanco.
I personally made several calls to the Governor’s office attempting to get authorization for the airboaters to enter Louisiana and New Orleans without success. Later, attempts were made through Washington, D.C. to get through to Louisiana senators and congressmen to get their attention. I even got one senator’s aid out of bed at 5:30 am.
The fact of the matter is that the Florida Airboat Association had over 300 airboats and operators prepared and willing to respond to New Orleans. Many were only a matter of 8 hours away and the Louisiana state government refused to recognize them.
In addition, those civilian airboaters who did travel to New Orleans and provided their services did so at the own uncompensated expense. Many of the volunteer airboaters sustained damage to their vessels that exceed $2,000 per boat. That, in addition to the uncompensated fuel and expenses, became quite costly to the good-ole-boy working man that sought no other reward then the helping of his fellow man in a time of need.
Each civilian airboater that responded to New Orleans knew that he/she had an valuable and unique resource that was inherently suited to perform the job and was unmatched by any other entity.
Those volunteers risked their health and safety and well being to help those in need.
When speaking directly with officials of the Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries, it was their response that the State of Louisiana would be gladly to accept the volunteer efforts of the airboaters, but the State would not provide them with fuel or other compensation. Their response was that “it was not in their budget.”
Further, to date the State of Louisiana has yet to recognize the volunteer airboaters for their efforts, while the Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries continues to take credit for the rescues and evacuations.
Robert Dummett
Chairman, Safety Committee
Florida Airboat Association