Military involvement

C.Ann

<font color=green>We'll remember when...<br><font
Joined
May 13, 2001
Messages
33,206
There is now talk of approaching Congress with the idea of the military taking action immediately in the event of natural disasters and/or terrorist attacks..

Over the past month or so, many have expressed their displeasure with this idea.. However, it does appear that when the military arrived in NO, things went much smoother - and much, much faster..

What would be the pro's and cons of allowing the military to be engaged almost immediately?

At first blush (based on NO) it seems like a good idea - but what would be the "not so good" aspects of it?

Just trying to learn more from these horrible experiences that Mother Nature has thrown this way..
 
Nobody seems much interested in debating this subject. I've tried on several other threads, post-Katrina.

One observation I have, in hindsight. It's been widely reported that President Bush chose not to invoke the Insurrection Act in the case of Katrina because of concerns that such an action would have been viewed as federal bullying of a Southern Democratic governor.

Some will scoff at such concerns, but keep in mind that if he HAD done so, the situation on the ground in New Orleans would have looked a lot different - it's very possible we wouldn't have seen the widespread suffering and chaos we all witnessed on TV from Wednesday to Friday following the storm. And President Bush would now be in the position of having to defend against political firestorm by pointing out that his actions averted something that never happen. Good luck with that job.
 
First, let me state that this is in answer to a question requesting CONS to the military having authority. The following is my opinion only. I am including some of the items that have helped to form this opinion. I have many friends, Rep and Dem who disagree with me, and I appreciate that. I am open to feedback regarding this.

To the webmasters: I believe I have properly worded this. If there is anything below that is against the rules, I would appreciate an explanation as to what it is. I have tried to be non-confrontational

RESPONSE:
One of the cons is that our military is strictly regulated to keep them away from action within our borders. There are many reasons; one is to avoid any possibility of a military coo in our country. We protected ourselves from the military early on. One of the reasons that we have the right to bear arms is so that we can revolt against the government if the government gets out of control. Many of the founding fathers were very vocal about our country becoming overly Federalized.

In the Declaration of Independence we declared the following:
"The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."... "He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power."

That is why we have laws against our army taking action within our borders without the strict written consent of the state they will be operating in. I would hate to lose that.
Yes, I believe it would have helped in Katrina, but only because of the problems in LA. That is not to say that LA local and state government was purposely behaving badly. I don’t believe that. I do believe that the situation became overwhelming and emotions kept some decisions from being made in a thoughtful and timely manner.

I believe strongly in the State vs. Federal rights and obligations. When we being to override the rights of the states we become further indebted to the mighty federal government.

I must admit that I frequently want to throw out the rules when it comes to things like this, but am terrified of what happens when it is over. How exactly do you take power away after it has been given? I catch myself thinking that I would be willing to give up this one freedom to keep my family safer. Then I think about all the freedoms we use to have that we gave up for a sense of security in the short-term. Once the danger was gone, we discovered that the freedom was gone also.
 
Thank you both for your answers.. I'm not looking to start any kind of debate, just genuinely interested in what the pro's and cons would be..

If the President does in fact approach Congress with this idea will they just flat out say no - or could there be some sort of middle ground they could meet for special circumstances?

Or would it be a better idea to separate FEMA from Homeland Security and insist on more employees (I think I heard there are only 2000 FEMA employees) with specialized training? :confused3
 

It seems to me that if the Feds are going to be blamed for every negative outcome, then they're going to insist on being given more control beforehand. Here are some likely scenarios:

Federal troops called in to carry out mandatory evacuations. Replacing state and local officials as the ultimate decision makers. The federal government may even insist that it be allowed to control zoning and development regulations at the local level to better mitigate future disasters.

I think this opens up a whole can of worms, almost all of it detrimintal.
 
I think FEMA should go back to being independent of the Homeland Security Department.

As far as the military being first in, I feel the National Guard should still be first responders for each state. Federal military can step in then as needed.
 
Nancy said:
I think FEMA should go back to being independent of the Homeland Security Department.

As far as the military being first in, I feel the National Guard should still be first responders for each state. Federal military can step in then as needed.

I agree!
 
Bush seeks to federalize emergencies
By Bill Sammon
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
September 27, 2005


President Bush yesterday sought to federalize hurricane-relief efforts, removing governors from the decision-making process.
"It wouldn't be necessary to get a request from the governor or take other action," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said yesterday.
"This would be," he added, "more of an automatic trigger."
Mr. McClellan was referring to a new, direct line of authority that would allow the president to place the Pentagon in charge of responding to natural disasters, terrorist attacks and outbreaks of disease.
"It may require change of law," Mr. Bush said yesterday. "It's very important for us as we look at the lessons of Katrina to think about other scenarios that might require a well-planned, significant federal response -- right off the bat -- to provide stability."
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) accused Mr. Bush of attempting a power grab in the wake of fierce criticism that he responded too slowly to Hurricane Katrina a month ago.
"Using the military in domestic law enforcement is generally a very bad idea," said Timothy Edgar, national security policy counsel for the ACLU. "I'm afraid that it will have unforeseen consequences for civil liberties."
Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour declined the president's offer to federalize the state's National Guard troops in the aftermath of Katrina. So Mr. Bush wants Congress to consider empowering the Pentagon with automatic control.
Currently, the lead federal agency responsible for disaster relief is the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which has just 2,500 employees and is a division of the Homeland Security Department. Mr. Bush has suggested that a more appropriate agency is the Department of Defense (DoD), which has 1.4 million active-duty troops.
"I was speculating about was a scenario which would require federal assets to stabilize the situation -- primarily DoD assets -- and then hand back over to Department of Homeland Security," the president said.
But stabilizing a crisis might require federal troops to arrest looters and perform other law-enforcement duties, which would violate the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. The law was passed in the wake of the Civil War and Reconstruction to prevent the use of federal troops from policing elections in former Confederate states.
The White House wants Congress to consider amending Posse Comitatus in order to grant the Pentagon greater powers.

"There are two committees that are moving forward on hearings to look at what went wrong and what went right with Hurricane Katrina and to apply lessons learned," Mr. McClellan said. "And this is an issue that they should look at as they're discussing these issues.
"We are also doing a comprehensive review within the federal government," he added.
The ACLU cautioned against such a change of law.
"The Posse Comitatus Act is sometimes criticized as some sort of obscure, centuries-old law," Mr. Edgar said. "But you know, most of our liberties are centuries old. So that would be like saying the Bill of Rights is obscure and old.
"Our strict separation between military and civilian power is one of the things that separates us from Latin America, for example," he added. "Changing that would put us on a huge slippery slope."
Meanwhile yesterday, outgoing FEMA Director Michael D. Brown reportedly said he should have sought help faster from the Pentagon after Katrina hit.
Mr. Brown spoke to congressional aides from both parties a day before he is scheduled to testify before a special House committee probing the government's response to the storm.
According to a memo from a Republican staffer who was at the 90-minute briefing, Mr. Brown expressed regrets "that he did not start screaming for DoD involvement" sooner. The first substantial numbers of active-duty troops responding to the Gulf Coast were sent Sept. 3 -- five days after the storm hit and after a flooded New Orleans had plunged into anarchy.
The memo, obtained by the Associated Press, said Mr. Brown took several shots at Mrs. Blanco and New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin. He said the two officials "sparred during the crisis and could not work together cooperatively."
He also called the governor "indecisive" and said she would not cede control of the Louisiana National Guard to federal authorities because "it would have undercut her image politically," the document said.
 
bsnyder said:
Some will scoff at such concerns, but keep in mind that if he HAD done so, the situation on the ground in New Orleans would have looked a lot different - it's very possible we wouldn't have seen the widespread suffering and chaos we all witnessed on TV from Wednesday to Friday following the storm. And President Bush would now be in the position of having to defend against political firestorm by pointing out that his actions averted something that never happen. Good luck with that job.

You are not kidding. There were those, including those in the media that ranted on and on that he didn't "visit" the affected areas. Now CBS evening news couldn't help themselves; they had to point out how much fuel Air Force One consumed on the President's seventh visit.
 
The federal government is large enough. I think the States should acknowledge the fact that they have control and responsibility for emergency response. They're just not living up to it.

The federal government should never be expected to provide significant physical assistance in catastrophes, beyond highly technical capabilities that are too expensive for any state to maintain, unused, at-the-ready.
 
I agree that primary control should remain with the states. But what should happen when the states are just too overwhelmed with the situation facing them? I think that they should be able to ask for help if the problem is too big for them to deal with.

Now one might argue that each state should be able to ready itself for catastrophes. But money might be limited and it will at the very least take time. They would also presumably hope to have their guardsmen available but that's another matter.
 
Planogirl said:
I agree that primary control should remain with the states. But what should happen when the states are just too overwhelmed with the situation facing them? I think that they should be able to ask for help if the problem is too big for them to deal with.

Now one might argue that each state should be able to ready itself for catastrophes. But money might be limited and it will at the very least take time. They would also presumably hope to have their guardsmen available but that's another matter.

Then I guess the question becomes if we let the states handle it and it gets out of hand how fast do we expect the Feds to take over. Most here decry the 3 day lag that the Feds had for Katrina and most other storms as well. If the Feds are going to have to spend the money (our tax dollars) and energy to be ready immediately then why not let them take over immediately anyways. I mean FEMA will always come but other Fed resources such as the military are not always used.
 
jgmklmhem said:
Then I guess the question becomes if we let the states handle it and it gets out of hand how fast do we expect the Feds to take over. Most here decry the 3 day lag that the Feds had for Katrina and most other storms as well. If the Feds are going to have to spend the money (our tax dollars) and energy to be ready immediately then why not let them take over immediately anyways. I mean FEMA will always come but other Fed resources such as the military are not always used.

The military should never move in until asked (same with the Fed). I am actually afraid of the prospect of the military being used against the people. They are never supposed to be deployed within the US. The National Guard is responsible for their own states. This whole situation is a huge can of worms.

Erin :)
 
Now one might argue that each state should be able to ready itself for catastrophes. But money might be limited
Yet, money should be more limited at the federal level. The federal deficit is already large enough.
 
I think this is a good topic for debate. However, before debating it we should each take a little time to review, or learn for the first time, a little bit about our history. I would focus first on federalism and learn wath it is and what it isn't. Then, I would look address the issue of whether we have a democratic or a republican form of government. It would also be instructive to research what peoples views were on the nature of liberty in the 1700's and 1800's. Finally, we should take a look at the Act that limits the role of the military on U.S. soil, The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. In nutshell, this act bans the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines from participating in arrests, searches, seizure of evidence and other police-type activity on U.S. soil. The Coast Guard and National Guard troops under the control of state governors are excluded from the act.

The law, was championed by far-sighted Southern lawmakers in 1878. They had experienced a fifteen year military occupation by the US Army in post-Civil War law enforcement. They understood what it was like to have an occupying army in their midst who had police powers.

Some say that legislators should resist the urge to change the Act because the military isn't trained to be a police force. But it should stick to the skills for which it is trained: surveillance, information gathering, logistical support. Which are activities allowable under Posse Comitatus.

There are other views of course.
 
That would be great. :(I would never get to plan a vacation with the fear that DFi would be swept away at a moment's notice. When he left to Iraq he had just a few weeks notice and left for a year and a half. I can't imagine if anytime there was a "natural disaster" (which can really be a broad range, when hurrican Isabelle struck in 2003 in VA -where we used to live-some areas were considered a natural disaster) he had to leave. That would be horrible.
 
halestrm said:
One of the cons is that our military is strictly regulated to keep them away from action within our borders. There are many reasons; one is to avoid any possibility of a military coo in our country. We protected ourselves from the military early on. One of the reasons that we have the right to bear arms is so that we can revolt against the government if the government gets out of control. Many of the founding fathers were very vocal about our country becoming overly Federalized.

Great point!! :banana: :banana:
 
I wouldn't support anything that takes state governors out of the decision-making process.
 
The National Guard is under the control of the Governor unless federalized. They are normally the first called to State Active Duty when there is a need. I believe in the case of Katrina, the State HQ's did not evacuate prior to the hurricane, and then their communications level was flooded, hence no ability to communicate. They spent 1 or 2 days saving themselves. If the Governor retains control, then they should be prepared to use it by placing troops out of harm's way to then be able to respond once the crisis has passed. I don't disagree that the State should retain control, but they need to know how/when to use it and then act! They should also not be afraid to call upon the Active Component when they need the help the Actives can provide. After watching people on roofs for three days, I can't believe there was discussion about "before we let them in we have to know how much control they will have".
 
C.Ann, thanks for this thread, but I would point out that it wasn't just an appearance that things got better when the military became involved, it really did - but there was a lot of other reasons as well, for instance the delay it took for them to get there that they used for the logistics and actually planning out what needed to happen. If they had been there from the start, it would have probably been a completely different story in many respects. To send them in without a plan is contrary to their nature. All branches take a lot of pride in taking care of their troops, which they can't do if they just through them at a problem.

As for sending them in first, I think we were to do this, it would require a Constituational Amendment, since we would be taking away many of the responsibilities and authority of the individual States, thus removing their guaranteed Republican form of government. I think it would be the worst of both worlds, placing more stress on our military, and putting them in situations they aren't prepared for, as well as taking authority and responsibility from our State governments. The precedent set, in my opinion would be frightening.
 


Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts. Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
Disney EarMarked Producer

New Posts







DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom