board77

Quote:

That's what FEMA is for is it not?

Yes, it is not. FEMA is made up of a bunch of managers who basically direct traffic for other resources. Somebody had to go in and restore order. It had to be the national guard and military, the police were stretched way too thin. A number of their members are MIA and some have reseigned. Their numbers were sufficient for a law-abiding city with modern communications, but nowhere near the need for disaster ravaged city with thugs feeling froggy.

Quote:

Wow, you are just the sort of fodder that will fit into the future big brother state perfectly. Actually, you'll probably be one of the mindless drones enforcing it.

I'm already enforcing it. If you've seen what's taken place in New Orleans and can conclude that everyone in that bunch would be gentlemanly enough to leave weapons behind, you are extremely naive. The story you linked to, was even talking about people getting on a helo. I'd sure as hell like to be sure no one is going to draw a gun on me and tell me to to fly them to Uncle Joe's in Tennessee. And you have to search the kids. To not do so is actually an insult to the intelligence of the victims. I mean, if I can think of the possibility of Daddy telling Junior to keep this in his pocket...you don't think they could think of that too?

Didn't mean to ignore your last post 10FT, but if there is a precedent for a common criminal thinking he could hijack a helicopter and get away with it, I'd like to hear it. (I think the role of FEMA has enough discussion elsewhere).

Back to the main topic of this thread, I just heard an interview on CNN discussing what needs to change in disaster management in the future. Whoever was being interviewed said that the most surprising thing had been the civil unrest in the city, and that they need to concentrate on ways to deal with this aspect better in the future. In other words, more funding for tightening the grip, just as all us loonys were predicting.

The motives for FEMA sabotaging the relief become clearer.. stop the aid getting in --> incite civil unrest --> get more power in the guise of dealing with civil unrest.

Firearms, including legally registered ones, are being confiscated in New Orleans. What do you think; can constitutional rights be suspended during a crisis, or is that when we need them most?

Long URL

Quote:

No civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry pistols, shotguns or other firearms, said P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of police. "Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons," he said.

I do not believe the Louisiana constitution even has a way of declaring martial law, which is the only method I know of to temporarily suspend the Constitution.

As much of a non-gun person as I am, this bothers me, especially in conjunction with what appears to be suspension of First and Fourth Amendment Rights.

Does this thread not now seem just the slightest bit prophetic?

Undamaged, middle-class areas of New Orleans are being raided by paramilitary police confiscating all legally owned weapons.

Here is a video of the confiscations and forced evacuations in progress:

http://x602.putfile.com/videos/25022023432.avi

Pretty scary, but I can hear halpm and 10FT now: "first you complain because the feds aren't doing anything, then when they try to do something, you complain about that!"

Edit: said "hamlet" instead of "halpm"

Quote:

Pretty scary

First you complain because the feds aren't doing anything, then when they try to do something, you complain about that!

Thanks for the clip Dave.

I really do hope I'm wrong thinking this is a glimpse of what awaits the country as a whole as more crises occur in the future.

If rounds are being made searching stable, dry homes without a warrant for guns to confiscate, it bothers me too. Searching everybody that is evacuated to another location, is one thing, but rounding up all weapons period is another.

In any case, this is just an over the top reaction to what has occured already, not an indication of what the government would like to do in the future.

Glad it bothers you too, even if we disagree on the motives.

The only report I've seen related to guns being taken away was about a rich white lawyer who threatened to shoot the police. He was arrested, I believe after pushing an officer, and his guns taken away. I saw a clip of it, and I have to say, it was deserved.

What exactly does one isolated incident prove? It doesn't matter if a few of the people having their guns taken are idiots, it's the principle that is wrong.

U.S. Can Confine Citizens Without Charges, Court Rules

Quote:

A federal appeals court yesterday backed the president's power to indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. soil without any criminal charges, holding that such authority is vital during wartime to protect the nation from terrorist attacks.

Wider Powers for U.S. Forces in Disasters Are Under Review

Quote:

'A senior White House official said Saturday that in the wake of the hurricane that demolished part of the nation's Gulf Coast, the Bush administration was studying whether to expand the president's powers to deploy the U.S. military in natural disasters. Dan Bartlett, counselor to President Bush, said that the administration was reviewing whether to increase the president's power to dispatch troops at the outset of a disaster and to give them law enforcement duties.

How much further towards martial law do we have to go before y'all start to get suspicious?

This is now looking like another Problem-Reaction-Solution.

Senator Joseph Biden to Judge Roberts:

"Can a microscopic tag be planted in a human body to track his every movement? There is actually discussion on that. You will rule on that, mark my words, before your tenure is over."

Iavas_Saar wrote:

Wider Powers for U.S. Forces in Disasters Are Under Review

Quote:

'A senior White House official said Saturday that in the wake of the hurricane that demolished part of the nation's Gulf Coast, the Bush administration was studying whether to expand the president's powers to deploy the U.S. military in natural disasters. Dan Bartlett, counselor to President Bush, said that the administration was reviewing whether to increase the president's power to dispatch troops at the outset of a disaster and to give them law enforcement duties.

How much further towards martial law do we have to go before y'all start to get suspicious?

This is now looking like another Problem-Reaction-Solution.

So your saying things should stay the way they are? And if in the next disaster the Governor is so incompetant that they don't even follow their own PLAN, then the President still shouldn't have any power to do anything about it?

I agree, I don't like that idea either. But if the President is the one being held accountable, he/she should have the power to act when necessary.

What I want to know is who hired the Blackwater killers-for-hire. They claim it's Homeland Security, Homeland Security denies it, but there they are in downtown NOLA, submachine guns in hand...

Quote:

So your saying things should stay the way they are?

Things should never have been the way they are. This is the most advanced nation in the world that has been facing natural disasters for decades, and this one in particular was easily foreseen.

IMO FEMA botched the relief on purpose, in order to provoke lawlessness and make it necessary for armed forces to control the city, setting the stage for martial law in future crises.

Quote:

What I want to know is who hired the Blackwater killers-for-hire. They claim it's Homeland Security, Homeland Security denies it, but there they are in downtown NOLA, submachine guns in hand...

NOLA, the new Fallujah.