Quake3World

Well martial law or not, using private, hired mercenaries for military and law enforcement purposes in Louisiana is a completely different animal.

I don't even approve of it in Iraq - much less here at home.

It does sort of mask the the arguments of critics who say we're using military 'on our own soil' against the population by using a private police force. It's like the CIA-FBI distinction

R00k wrote:

seremtan wrote:lol, cutting. some gaps between those paras would be nice.

I didn't realize it was going to be unbroken like that until after I posted it. Should have refreshed. :icon32:

that's ok. my dylsexia has cleared right up

Using the term 'mercenary' is rather loaded because, by definition, a mercenary one who serves a foreign army for money. These private contractors are Americans and the NOPD seems to be largely out to lunch. Unless we've entered a new age of corporate-nationalism, where people organize as one nation under the CEO, I don't see a danger in private security firms providing supplementary police duties, no matter who hires them... But I'll leave that up to you to ponder

Dave wrote:It does sort of mask the the arguments of critics who say we're using military 'on our own soil' against the population by using a private police force. It's like the CIA-FBI distinction

Maybe if they started outsourcing FBI operations to private companies.

There is a distinct line regarding what the FBI can/can't do here. The CIA is a different story though - that whole agency is pretty much a grey area. They don't even reveal what most of their funding is spent on, so there's no way for us to know.

R00k wrote:Well martial law or not, using private, hired mercenaries for military and law enforcement purposes in Louisiana is a completely different animal.

I don't even approve of it in Iraq - much less here at home.

Note: I wouldn't be happy either if private, gunmen (it does seem like something out of the USA-style old-west) were running around Holland...

Dave wrote:Using the term 'mercenary' is rather loaded because, by definition, a mercenary one who serves a foreign army for money. These private contractors are Americans and the NOPD seems to be largely out to lunch. Unless we've entered a new age of corporate-nationalism, where people organize as one nation under the CEO, I don't see a danger in private security firms providing supplementary police duties, no matter who hires them... But I'll leave that up to you to ponder

Well one of the big problems is that the people who normally do this work are tremendously underpaid, while the private contractors are getting loads of money.

Instead of paying our law enforcement what their services are worth, they are giving huge amounts to their buddies' corporations who are doing the jobs instead. And even worse, they don't really have to answer to anybody.

I'm not comparing this to a 'CIA for hire' situation, that's wholly irrelevant to the comparison. I'm comparing the role the military traditionally plays compared to that of a police force. Our military isn't trained to police nor is it expected to police our citizens. Private security contractors, the one's we're talking about here, are trained to provide law enforcement.

It doesn't matter to me who polices NO. As far as compensation goes, that's a matter left up to the city. No one forces police to be police.

Well, the way I used mercenary was as a loaded term, so that probably detracted from the point I was trying to make.

The idea of the government circumventing their own employees to give tons more cash to someone else to do that job is nepotistic profiteering.

What if the American Enterprise Institute started training their own teachers? And the head of the Education department left and became a director at the Institute. And he used his contacts from the department to help divert Education money to their education division for teaching jobs?

And if you, as a teacher, didn't like your salary or the people you had to answer to, then you could retire (after your tenure is up). You could keep your same position at the same school, but you could start contracting for AEI, who is getting their money from tax dollars too. But you wouldn't have to answer to the principle or the school board anymore. You could just teach however you wanted - or however AEI wanted you to.

lol.. tnf would love that. I bet he wouldn't have to teach evolution any more

R00k wrote: They don't even reveal what most of their funding is spent on, so there's no way for us to know.

The Pentagon is far worse in this regard. The requirement that they furnish annual audits to congress was waived years ago.

'Luckily' this flood came because I was hurting for a topic to care about for the papers I have to write in my African environmental history class. The 'politics of disaster' seems like a good phrase to build upon.

R00k wrote:Well, the way I used mercenary was as a loaded term, so that probably detracted from the point I was trying to make.

The idea of the government circumventing their own employees to give tons more cash to someone else to do that job is nepotistic profiteering.

What if the American Enterprise Institute started training their own teachers? And the head of the Education department left and became a director at the Institute. And he used his contacts from the department to help divert Education money to their education division for teaching jobs?

And if you, as a teacher, didn't like your salary or the people you had to answer to, then you could retire (after your tenure is up). You could keep your same position at the same school, but you could start contracting for AEI, who is getting their money from tax dollars too. But you wouldn't have to answer to the principle or the school board anymore. You could just teach however you wanted - or however AEI wanted you to.

Don't get me wrong, I think we are living in a Robinocracy, but I don't fear or distrust Bush because I know he and his kind are out to fuck us. Given that, in this disaster, it was (and still is) up to the 'people' to take matters into their own hands. Local and state government should have stepped up a lot closer to the plate and swung instead of fighting with the ump when they struck out because they didn't act decisively. That's where the real tragedy of the disaster lies.

Every time I hear of some hotel owner or whatnot charging people for shelter or escape or a government official, at any level-federal, state, local, make some excuse, I just about want to throw my TV through the window. What I fear are the do nothing local governments and nickel and dime profiteers who would ask to see someone's checkbook, plane ticket or insurance card before helping them out. We've seen a lot of that this time around.

We've also seen a lot of good, but few, like the city of Houston have been truly decisive and made firm sacrifices. I've also been impressed by the high level of emotion and honesty a few television reporters have brought to the screen. Take them out of the studio and fancy suit and drop them in the middle of chaos and they will give you a more accurate picture. I saw John Gibson, the Fox News asshole, actually apologize to the Canadian ambassador for questioning Canada's aid to the United States when it never should have been mentioned at all... I thought Hell froze over.

It's this kind of attitude that really makes we wish we'd bring back the Revolution... not for a revolution itself, but to reevaluate why and how we got here. We've lost sight of those roots. It's become swimmin pools and movie stars, not liberty and virtue. If it keeps up much longer, we might be one of the first nations to test how fragile nationalism really is. This attitude is the reason the Bush Robinocracy is able to manipulate the system. People are too self absorbed to take any real notice of what's happening to their neighbors. Our collective aloof arrogance is the reason why America is going down the tubes.

By the way, I'm not excusing Bush, FEMA or the rest of the Federal Government, but I think the root of the problem runs much deeper than a few officials.. I think it's ideological

I'm surprised to say that I agree with you on just about all those points.

The local officials in LA have a lot to answer for themselves. It is their responsibility to have an evacuation plan, and with 2 days warning of this they should have been able to do a LOT more than they did as far as getting people to safety. Scientists, researchers and others have been predicting this for a while now, so there should have been a solid contingency plan in case this happened. If everyone knew the levees wouldn't withstand a CAT5 storm and flooding, then serious action should have been taken as soon as Katrina was seen to be coming in their direction. I can't make any judgement on how many of the poor and homeless they could have gotten out of the city in those two days, but if they had used school buses and such there would have been a lot less confusion and disaster on the ground there.

But I also think my criticism for FEMA is completely warranted. They also knew 2 days in advance; and while they couldn't have known exactly how many people would be stranded in the city, they should have had plenty of support ready and waiting by the time the storm was gone. But their response was even worse than unpreparedness - there was aid lined up and waiting outside New Orleans, from the military, to the Red Cross, to private aid donations, and they actually turned it away.

Their military approach to the whole situation prevented them from mitigating the long-term effects of this disaster. It was their stance, apparently, that they could not drop food in NO because people would riot for it, which is a completey irresponsible approach when it comes to saving people's lives. It is nothing more than an excuse based on a generalizing judgement of the "kind" of people who were trapped in the city. It was an ideological view from the people at the top that caused a lot of people to die unnecessarily, and completely exacerbated the problem instead of preparing for, mitigating, controlling and fixing the problems - which is the only thing the agency was created to do.

And the reason it happened that way, is due to the reorganization of FEMA under the Homeland Security department, stripping it of funds and authority, and then appointing unqualified and incompetent cronies in the leadership of such an unquestionably important organization. If the disaster hadn't been as bad, then much of this probably wouldn't have come into focus. Instead, we had the unfortunate and rare disaster that causes people to rely on FEMA for their lives, and FEMA completely let them down due to bureaucratic red tape, and a downgraded sense of the agency's importance from the current leaders in government.

For interests sake, where would those school buses have taken them?

Anywhere outside the city. The governor of LA could have been involved in the disaster plan, and could have made arrangements for people to be taken to other parts of the state.

edit: Just as a guess. I can't say what options they had for sure because I'm not there, but I imagine the mayor's and governor's people could have made some kind of arrangements in the event of something this massive. Knowing how serious the situation in the area would be IF the levees broke, and knowing that it was a possibility, it was their responsibility to have some sort of contingency plan, whatever it took. It's simply not the responsibility of any federal organization to create disaster plans for cities and states - only to provide help when they're needed.

Ta

R00k wrote: ...Their military approach to the whole situation prevented them from mitigating the long-term effects of this disaster. It was their stance, apparently, that they could not drop food in NO because people would riot for it, which is a completey irresponsible approach when it comes to saving people's lives.

/FlameArmor ON

I've been working under the assumption that the disaster in NO could have been treated better and it is good to re-evaluate systems periodically, but let me ask this:

Has there been a case of a western country with a similar flooding problem of a major city. Flooding incurs its own special set of problems and of course NO is in a dire case because its below sea level - the water doesnt just go away afterwards. My impression is that the greater new orleans area has 1.4 million people. Thats a bit harder to manage than say a small city of 30,000.

In short, has anyone in the western world done better? - how about a benchmark to measure NO against? It is possible (however vanishingly small) that NO was just average in disaster reaction.

BTW, I also live in a country which exists mostly below sea level and when the levies broke in the mid-90s, an evacuation plan was about non-existent. My co-workers and I heard that flooding was happening just 20 km away and we were quickly thinking...hmmm...where is the highest point in the area?

well your criteria are a little tight for a one to one comparision given that the only country that i can think of with large areas below sea level, loads of dikes, and cities built on the land is holland, which hasn't been hit by any hurricanes recently.

cuba was hit by one last year iirc and no one died because civil defence moved everyone to high ground with food and medical supplies in double quick time. it's a rough comparison, but it still makes the US look fucking embarrassed not to be able to at least equal the disaster management of a poor 3rd world country

hax103 wrote:Has there been a case of a western country with a similar flooding problem of a major city. Flooding incurs its own special set of problems and of course NO is in a dire case because its below sea level - the water doesnt just go away afterwards. My impression is that the greater new orleans area has 1.4 million people. Thats a bit harder to manage than say a small city of 30,000.

Sure. in 1953 thousands died when dykes in holland were breached by hurricane. Since that time, the dutch invested and strenghthened their system to withstand category 5 hurricanes. The chance of a cat 5 hurricane hitting one of the levies in holland is about 1 in 40,000.

In 1940, a hurricane cause the breach of one of the levies in New Orleans. Since that time, the New Orleans levie system remains able to withstand just category 3 storms. The chance of a cat 5 hurricane hitting New Orleans is about 1 in 200.

hax103 wrote: /FlameArmor ON

I've been working under the assumption that the disaster in NO could have been treated better and it is good to re-evaluate systems periodically, but let me ask this:

Has there been a case of a western country with a similar flooding problem of a major city. Flooding incurs its own special set of problems and of course NO is in a dire case because its below sea level - the water doesnt just go away afterwards. My impression is that the greater new orleans area has 1.4 million people. Thats a bit harder to manage than say a small city of 30,000.

In short, has anyone in the western world done better? - how about a benchmark to measure NO against? It is possible (however vanishingly small) that NO was just average in disaster reaction.

BTW, I also live in a country which exists mostly below sea level and when the levies broke in the mid-90s, an evacuation plan was about non-existent. My co-workers and I heard that flooding was happening just 20 km away and we were quickly thinking...hmmm...where is the highest point in the area?

I understand your point, but I frankly feel that asking if anyone else has done better is a completely separate issue from the deliberate-seeming inactions from the agencies in charge.

In other words, if all agencies and departments had demonstrably done everything they could, and the disaster wasn't able to be averted, then maybe it would be appropriate to say "Well, we did the best we could - has anyone else been able to do better?"

But that isn't the case here. There were massive failures of action and communication at all levels, and decisions were made that literally and directly caused more and greater problems. Accountability needs to lie with the people who made those bad decisions, and you don't need a yardstick to compare the scale of the disaster in order to do that.

As an analogy; if you were attempting to ride a horse five hundred miles across a desert, and you had hired someone to prepare your horse for the trip, would it be okay to not hold him accountable when your horse fell over partway through the race, and you found out the trainer didn't feed or water him, or check his health the last couple of days before you left - and the trainer's response was that the trip was impossible to begin with, so he shouldn't be responsible for the fact that the trip failed?

After all, you're not holding him responsible for the failure of the trip; you're holding him responsible for doing what he was hired to do, which was to prepare for it.

The fact that it was an unprecedented disaster does not abdicate officials' responsibilities for their decisions in the crisis - especially when they have been shown to be extremely negligent in their duties, and those irresponsible decisions made the situation worse than it would have otherwise been.

Foo wrote: Sure. in 1953 thousands died when dykes in holland were breached by hurricane. Since that time, the dutch invested and strenghthened their system to withstand category 5 hurricanes. The chance of a cat 5 hurricane hitting one of the levies in holland is about 1 in 40,000.

LOL. Sure, we fortified the sea dykes and that has been written up endlessly in the news. However, as with many things, thats not the whole truth. We only fortified the sea side aspect but neglected the river-side flooding part so in 1993, guess what! We had major flooding.

So, one would think that we would have learned from 1993 and taken IMMEDIATE steps to ensure the river-side would not be a problem. Nope. Major flooding from the river-side again in 1995 (fairly close to where I live).

The truth is that we (netherlands) also don't take the right steps for disaster prevention and I was sortof wondering if that was the nature of the beast for most countries. Whats worse is that the world news makes it look like we are being smart when actually we definitely are not exemplars for disaster prevention.

hax103 wrote:

Nightshade wrote:

hax103 wrote: Expected actually. Did you see the reader's comments? LOL! Umm, once an area is under "Martial Law", the rules do change...

The "Swiss student's" comments were obviously made by a faker. LOL

Are you retarded? Has martial law been declared?

Thanks for the "retarted" comment. Heres a gift for u too

ROFL!

Earth to NightJerkOff! Earth to NightJerkOff!

Martial Law was declared for New Orleans on 31st August.

Here is a quote from the New York Times and a quote: "There's a martial law declaration in place that gives us legal authority for mandatory evacuations,"

see http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/07/natio ... storm.html

Martial law has NOT been declared in New Orleans, retard.
http://civilliberty.about.com/b/a/198081.htm

And my initial retard comment was directed to your "fake Swiss poster" remark.

Freakaloin wrote:mag0t...

Bob Saget

Night...

Regarding "martial law", this was discussed earlier in this thread. Below is a copy of my post. Basically, the Louisiana Governor did issue a "state of emergency" which is allowed in their state constitution whereas "martial law" simply is not mentioned.

This "state of emergency" gives them the ability to suspend civil liberties toward expediting quicker actions for disaster relief. It allows the military to go in and clear people out if they want to.

Also, every major news source in the USA is calling it "martial law" including the Mayor of New Orleans.

LOL!!!

You can call it what you wish. You and Bill Clinton should also get together to quibble about what "sex" means. But really! A BJ isnt sex!

hax103 wrote:

R00k wrote:Louisiana's constitution doesn't allow for martial law, only declaration for a state of emergency.

Some clarifications:

(1) The Louisiana constitution simply does not mention the term "martial law"

(2) The Louisiana constitution does mention explicitly (as you also said) a "state of emergency"

So, one might ask, "What the hell does - state of emergency - mean for the New Orleans situation?

Here is a quote: "The declaration of a state of emergency issued by Gov. Kathleen Blanco (of Louisiana) on Friday and set to continue for at least a month does give officials power to suspend civil liberties in the process of restoring order, and the Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act of 1993 gives the governor and heads of parishes power to commandeer property"

see http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2 ... al-law.php

So, it does sound like "martial law" (suspending civil liberties, etc.) to me and it seems that the phrase "martial law" is used very frequently by the USA news organizations and the mayor of New Orleans.