1. #1
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default Cindy's not going to like this...

    Military May Play Bigger Relief Role
    Sep 17 2:59 PM US/Eastern

    By ROBERT BURNS
    AP Military Writer

    WASHINGTON

    President Bush's push to give the military a bigger role in responding to major disasters like Hurricane Katrina could lead to a loosening of legal limits on the use of federal troops on U.S. soil.

    Pentagon officials are reviewing that possibility, and some in Congress agree it needs to be considered.

    Bush did not define the wider role he envisions for the military. But in his speech to the nation from New Orleans on Thursday, he alluded to the unmatched ability of federal troops to provide supplies, equipment, communications, transportation and other assets the military lumps under the label of "logistics."

    The president called the military "the institution of our government most capable of massive logistical operations on a moment's notice."

    At question, however, is how far to push the military role, which by law may not include actions that can be defined as law enforcement _ stopping traffic, searching people, seizing property or making arrests. That prohibition is spelled out in the Posse Comitatus Act of enacted after the Civil War mainly to prevent federal troops from supervising elections in former Confederate states.

    Speaking on the Senate floor Thursday, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said, "I believe the time has come that we reflect on the Posse Comitatus Act." He advocated giving the president and the secretary of defense "correct standby authorities" to manage disasters.

    Presidents have long been reluctant to deploy U.S. troops domestically, leery of the image of federal troops patrolling in their own country or of embarrassing state and local officials.

    The active-duty elements that Bush did send to Louisiana and Mississippi included some Army and Marine Corps helicopters and their crews, plus Navy ships. The main federal ground forces, led by troops of the 82nd Airborne Division from Fort Bragg, N.C., arrived late Saturday, five days after Katrina struck.

    They helped with evacuations and performed search-and-rescue missions in flooded portions of New Orleans but did not join in law enforcement operations.

    The federal troops were led by Lt. Gen. Russel Honore. The governors commanded their National Guard soldiers, sent from dozens of states.

    Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is reviewing a wide range of possible changes in the way the military could be used in domestic emergencies, spokesman Lawrence Di Rita said Friday. He said these included possible changes in the relationship between federal and state military authorities.

    Under the existing relationship, a state's governor is chiefly responsible for disaster preparedness and response.

    Governors can request assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. If federal armed forces are brought in to help, they do so in support of FEMA, through the U.S. Northern Command, which was established in 2002 as part of a military reorganization after the 9/11 attacks.

    Di Rita said Rumsfeld has not made recommendations to Bush, but among the issues he is examining is the viability of the Posse Comitatus Act. Di Rita called it one of the "very archaic laws" from a different era in U.S. history that limits the Pentagon's flexibility in responding to 21st century domestic crises.

    Another such law, Di Rita said, is the Civil War-era Insurrection Act, which Bush could have invoked to waive the law enforcement restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act. That would have enabled him to use either National Guard soldiers or active-duty troops _ or both _ to quell the looting and other lawlessness that broke out in New Orleans.

    The Insurrection Act lets the president call troops into federal action inside the United States whenever "unlawful obstructions, combinations or assemblages _ or rebellion against the authority of the United States _ make it impracticable to enforce the laws" in any state.

    The political problem in Katrina was that Bush would have had to impose federal command over the wishes of two governors _ Kathleen Blanco of Louisiana and Haley Barbour of Mississippi _ who made it clear they wanted to retain state control.

    The last time the Insurrection Act was invoked was in 1992 when it was requested by California Gov. Pete Wilson after the outbreak of race riots in Los Angeles. President George H.W. Bush dispatched about 4,000 soldiers and Marines.

    Di Rita cautioned against expecting quick answers to tough questions like whether Congress should define when to trigger the president's authority to send federal troops to take charge of an emergency, regardless of whether a governor agreed.

    "Is there a way to define a threshold, or an anticipated threshold, above which a different set of relationships would kick in?" Di Rita asked. "That's a good question. It's only been two weeks, so don't expect us to have the answers. But those are the kinds of questions we need to be asking."

    Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.




  2. #2
    Forum Member
    MIKEYLIKESIT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Division 24
    Posts
    4,360

    Default

    Why wouldn't Cindy like it George?
    IAFF-IACOJ PROUD

  3. #3
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MIKEYLIKESIT
    Why wouldn't Cindy like it George?
    From the Drudge Report:

    CINDY SHEEHAN CALLS FOR U.S TO 'PULL OUR TROOPS OUT OF OCCUPIED NEW ORLEANS'
    Mon Sep 12 2005 12:42:11 ET

    Celebrity anti-war protester, fresh off inking a lucrative deal with Speaker's Bureau, has demanded at the HUFFINGTON POST and MICHAEL MOORE'S website that the United States military must immediately leave 'occupied' New Orleans.

    "I don't care if a human being is black, brown, white, yellow or pink. I donŐt care if a human being is Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, or pagan. I don't care what flag a person salutes: if a human being is hungry, then it is up to another human being to feed him/her. George Bush needs to stop talking, admit the mistakes of his all around failed administration, pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans and Iraq, and excuse his self from power. The only way America will become more secure is if we have a new administration that cares about Americans even if they donŐt fall into the top two percent of the wealthiest."

    Sheehan is in the middle of a bus trip across America in support of her cause.

    Developing...

  4. #4
    MembersZone Subscriber
    mcaldwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Panorama, British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    3,022

    Default

    I think it only makes sense.

    When local resources are so obviously overwhelmed as they were in NO, the military is the logical resource to call upon.

    1. They have elaborate, relatively failsafe communications networks.
    2. They have tools and personnel trained to operate in ANY environment.
    3. They usually have rapid reaction forces ready to go on less than 48 hrs notice.
    4. They are fully equipped to defend themselves against any pot shots taken at them.
    5. They have a direct line of authority to the Pres, so there is no time wasted waiting for orders.

    We have used our forces successfully in Canada for everything from flooding to forest fires. It works well.

    So aside from that little constitution thingy ( ), what's the problem?
    Never argue with an Idiot. They drag you down to their level, and then beat you with experience!

    IACOJ

  5. #5
    Forum Member
    MIKEYLIKESIT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Division 24
    Posts
    4,360

    Default

    Edited by poster.
    Last edited by MIKEYLIKESIT; 09-18-2005 at 12:28 AM.
    IAFF-IACOJ PROUD

  6. #6
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Borderstate
    Posts
    899

    Question Not Sure!

    I am not sure we should totally change the law!The military did get around the law during this event.Why change it now?

    We should not have federal troops used at will on US Soil to police.This could spell trouble for the nation!
    Last edited by coldfront; 09-17-2005 at 08:27 PM.
    Always a day late and a dollar short!

    Hillbilly Irish!

  7. #7
    Forum Member
    MIKEYLIKESIT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Division 24
    Posts
    4,360

    Default

    Maybe I am missing something but I just looked up these alledged comments by Cindy Sheehan on both mentioned sites. Don''t see anything. I do believe there is a need for easier deployment of federal troops. How this is accomplished needs to be carefully crafted.
    IAFF-IACOJ PROUD

  8. #8
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    30

    Default

    "Maybe I am missing something but I just looked up these alledged comments by Cindy Sheehan on both mentioned sites. Don''t see anything. "

    You missed the famous Drudge Line.... "developing" He uses that to print rumors and then have the ability to retract them later.

    As a long time lurker to the rants of Mr Wendts I just figured out the source of a lot of his information. The Drudge Report, worth a daily visit, but should be taken with a grain of salt, especially when reading anything that ends with "developing."

  9. #9
    Forum Member
    nmfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Maryland (DC Suburb)
    Posts
    5,738

    Default

    Even if it is made up, I wouldn't put it past the moron. She'll probably read it and think "hey, that's a great idea!"
    Even the burger-flippers at McDonald's probably have some McWackers.

  10. #10
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RE33
    "Maybe I am missing something but I just looked up these alledged comments by Cindy Sheehan on both mentioned sites. Don''t see anything. "

    You missed the famous Drudge Line.... "developing" He uses that to print rumors and then have the ability to retract them later.

    As a long time lurker to the rants of Mr Wendts I just figured out the source of a lot of his information. The Drudge Report, worth a daily visit, but should be taken with a grain of salt, especially when reading anything that ends with "developing."
    You "just figured out" my source? Wow! Since I really don't try to hide it, that's quite an accomplishment. Of course, being the astute investigator you are, you DID notice that the Drudge line was a minor part of the thread. I am certain you also noticed that the main story on this thread is from the AP. Finally, since you've been a long time fan, I know that you know my policy of always either giving credit to the source or including the entire byline in the post.

    If you look at the Posse Comatatis law from a historical perspective, I think we all can agree on two things:

    1. The military needs to be included in any type of civil response plan.
    2. The military activation to civil duty has to be carefully considered and fit within a clearly defined set of criteria.

    I do not agree with including Congress in the decision making process. As we have seen, time is of the essence, and subjecting that decision to days of Congressmen grandstanding and blathering would defeat the purpose.

    I, also, do not want to see the military in our streets on a routine basis.

  11. #11
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Weiner, AR, USA
    Posts
    99

    Default

    I agree that the federal military assests should be used especially when they are near the affected region. BUT
    I also believe if the National Guard was kept here to be used in "homeland" issues, then the federal level might not be needed or not needed as much.
    It hard for any Governor to be able to send their states National guard to help when a large portion of them have been sent overseas on a Federal military mission.
    While all the guard troops are doing their missions overseas, we also have thousands of active duty federal troops just sitting in countries all around the globe with most being a lot closer to the area than the guard troops were...
    I have spent time in the US Army and a tour each in the guard and reserves. We have plenty of federal assests to cover the overseas missions without thinning out our NATIONAL assets.
    The Guard reports directly to the Governor, the Reserves are a federal assest,
    so why is it that a huge portion of our troops overseas are Guard units ??
    Is the administration afraid of upsetting the other countries that our federal troops are stationed in if they sent those troops to Iraq, Afgani, etc. There are many of those countries that we shouldnt be in as well !!!!
    Looks to me if Local Engine company 1 is the nearest and best trained then why not use them instead of calling in mutual aid from 10,000 miles away ??
    Tyler

  12. #12
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Clermont County, Ohio
    Posts
    569

    Default The Military - an excellent mutual aid choice

    I think the key point is exactly what the president said: "the institution of our government most capable of massive logistical operations on a moment's notice."

    I believe some military bases participate in local mutual aid agreements in a limited way: base fire & EMS services, SAR, helicopter operations, etc. I know Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton does. Often these go both ways, with local agencies helping out the base forces in larger incidents. I think that if local base commanders were authorized broader authority to enter into disaster aid agreements with local, regional, and state authorities, a large number of personnel who are used to operating in a structured command system, with strong support systems for food, etc, and large numbers of vehicles could be made rapidly available.

    The big failure in Katrina was getting sufficient resources there quickly once the local and regional agencies were overwhelmed. Adding the military as a mutual aid source at the local/regional level will help as will adding it at a national level.

    There are still huge preplanning, command and control issues that need to be solved. Without reigniting the argument, it's pretty clear that none of the NO, LA, and FEMA folks called in enough help soon enough. We need to make sure decisions are made quickly to call in sufficient help, and that the approval process to send that help is very quick.
    Proud to be honored with IACOJ membership. Blessed by TWO meals cooked by Cheffie - a true culinary goddess. Expressing my own views, not my organization's.

  13. #13
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    30

    Default

    "Of course, being the astute investigator you are, you DID notice that the Drudge line was a minor part of the thread. I am certain you also noticed that the main story on this thread is from the AP. "

    The story you posted was from AP. Your title was a reference to the dubious Drudge story. Pretty significant difference and one that I was "astute" enough to notice. Nice try at deflection.

    "Finally, since you've been a long time fan,...."

    Funny, I said I have been a lurker of your rants, I never said fan.

    "Even if it is made up, I wouldn't put it past the moron. She'll probably read it and think "hey, that's a great idea!""

    A fine example of "compassionate conservatism." A woman loses her son and does nothing more then exercise her right to free speech and peaceful assembly. What do the neo-cons do? Call her a moron.

  14. #14
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    I never called her a moron.

    I have called her a wicked, evil, witch who has spent aninordinate amount of time and energy expressing hatred and disdain at my country, the military who protects my country and my president. She is not grieving. She forfeited the right ot hat word when she began to dishonor her son and dishonor his service to this nation. She has embarked on a hate tour. Every word out of her mouth is full of venom and hate. She crossed the line from free speech along time ago.

  15. #15
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Oh yeah. Also, since you have been since a big fan of mine, you certainly have noticed that I use sarcasm and satire an awful lot. Hence the Cindy comment in the title. Never said it was true.

    I can send you an autographed picture if you want it.

  16. #16
    MembersZone Subscriber
    mcaldwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Panorama, British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    3,022

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI
    I never called her a moron.

    I have called her a wicked, evil, witch...
    I can send you an autographed picture if you want it.
    ROFLMAO!

    I was waiting for someone to start the GeorgeWendtCFI Fan Club. Here's the perfect candidate. 10 bucks gets you lifetime membership, free access to his web rants, and one of those autographed head shots.
    Never argue with an Idiot. They drag you down to their level, and then beat you with experience!

    IACOJ

  17. #17
    Forum Member
    spearsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Lowndes, MS USA
    Posts
    742

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI
    .....I can send you an autographed picture if you want it.

    BAWA HAhahahaA!!!!! You're killing me!
    YGBSM!
    Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    If all you have is a hammer, then your problems start to look like nails.
    ___________________

    IACOJ
    Southern Division.

  18. #18
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    30

    Default

    "I never called her a moron."

    I never said you did. While it is obvious you are very self absorbed, and think highly of yourself, not every post here is a response to you.

    "I have called her a wicked, evil, witch who has spent aninordinate amount of time and energy expressing hatred and disdain at my country, the military who protects my country and my president."

    Asking Bush "what is the noble cause?" is expressing hatred and disdain? It is going to be a long three years for you. The country is finally waking up and realizing that questioning our leaders in not unpatriotic. Bush had a long free ride and now it is time to be accountable.

    "I can send you an autographed picture if you want it."

    While there is no doubt that you have hundreds of pictures of yourself readily available, I will pass. Thank you for offering though.

  19. #19
    Permanently Removed
    hoseheadmaps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    pa
    Posts
    76

    Default cindy tidbits

    poor cindy:

    More about Cindy . . .



    What is most interesting to me is that the press gives this

    little bunch of people who are protesting with Cindy so much air time

    without discussing Cindy's background.



    This is a case of more press bias. It has

    been pointed out on just a couple of media outlets that Cindy divorced her

    first husband and left her son with him to be raised while she became a

    political activist for the Democratic Party.



    She had very little to do with her son in his growing years.

    She remarried. The 1st husband remarried.

    The original father raised the son with his new wife. They miss their son and mourn

    the loss of his life. They have stated that they are very proud of their son

    and that they agree with the stance of America in Iraq and on terror. They

    said that their son was eager to serve and to go fight the terrorists in Iraq.

    He volunteered.

    How many news stations carried their interview? Not many.

    So the son dies in Iraq and then Cindy shows up to make a stink. She gets an

    audience with Bush. That was not enough. She goes to Crawford and demands

    another audience. How many news stations carry the ongoing saga of Cindy?

    Practically all of them.

    Cindy didn't care about her son. She let another woman raise him. Cindy

    doesn't care about the other soldiers in Iraq. Cindy

    cares about her liberal, feminist agenda and about using the death of her son

    to lobby against Republicans and Bush. And the press is helping her. Why?


    Then a few days ago, Cindy's 2nd husband filed for a divorce from Cindy. Cindy

    sounds like a feminist opportunist who did not have the sense of

    responsibility to even raise her own son. It looks like her 2nd husband is fed up withCindy.

    We middle Americans should be fed up with Cindy also. We should be

    fed up with the press. They manipulate us into their "group think" and into

    the responses that they want on their polls.

  20. #20
    Forum Member
    MIKEYLIKESIT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Division 24
    Posts
    4,360

    Default

    Speaking as a "middle American" you people need to get a grip. If you are not intelligent enough to think for yourselves, if you need the media, Hollywood, Cindy Sheehan, Matt Drudge et al. to do you're thinking for you, we have bigger problems in this country then we realize. For someone that many of you are railing against (I for one am not paying attention to the whole saga), you sure like bringing her name up. (Like the title of this thread,completely irrelevant to the subject.). I am not pretending to know much in this world, but I would ask you GWB lovers if a democrat was running this war from the start would YOU be satisfied with the way its going? Be honest now.
    IAFF-IACOJ PROUD

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register