Should the Governor of La turn over control to the military?

[sponger]

The governor needs to be impeached! Not imposing martial law is criminal. Unfortuantely the feds have their hands tied. I think in cases of National emergency their needs to be a way for the feds to superceede states rights.

First the evacuation order was delayed a crucial 24 hours, then NO was allowed to decend into hell. All while the Gov sits back and allows it to happen. You must protect the survivors and to hell with Civil Rights. You can worry about those when you have a roof over your head

[Persepone]

If you are not a looter, wielding an AK-47, otherwise participating in criminal activity, you have nothing to fear from Martial Law in an emergency situation such as this.

So what's the problem?

Are those frail elderly people, those severely disabled people, those premature babies in the hospital who will die when the batteries run out, and those people still waiting for rescue on roofs, balconies, etc. are supposed to suffer longer (or perhaps die) because the governor wants to protect the civil rights of looters, thugs, and assorted evil-doers?

[sponger]

I agree completely. These people need protection. Its like mad max to the 10th power right now.

[artist]

I just heard from friends that operations have been turned over to the military now. They are from there.

[therealashe]

They are stopping rescue efforts for now. There are still people in hospitals, 500 elderly trapped at a church.

How many will die because of this? Something has to be done, there has to be a way to gain control.

It's total anarchy there.

[sponger]

Wow! I am suprised by the early lopsided results. I think we are all fed up with the situation.

[Downdraft]

You impose martial law when civil authority can no longer handle the situation. I think it's very obvious civil authority cannot handle the situation. As a former military person there is no greater HONOR than being called upon to help your fellow citizens. Yes, it is time for the military BY CONSTIUTIONAL MEANS to remove control of the situation from the civil authority.

[MBismyPlayground]

This should have been done the moment there was looting and the civil authorities could not handle it. This should have been done when it was realized that total towns were destroyed. This should have been done, when it was realized there were so many dead.
Now, not only do you have criminal elements who are pissed off just because that is their nature, now you have angry, hungry and dehydrated people with children, and these people will eventually resort to the lowest levels due to their basic needs not being met!

[iluvseashore]

I never thought I would see any part of the U. S. look like this. So unbelievable. I am shocked and so upset seeing this chaos.This shouldn't be happening in the richest country in the world. I'm hearing as I type this that Homeland Security is ramping up once again, but I am afraid that for some it is just too late. Latest pics on CNN are just horrible.

I'm furious sitting in my air-conditioned home. I can't imagine how those people in 90 degree heat with no food and water feel.

Sorry for the rambling:) I just needed to get this off my chest.

[beachbum_al]

I say send the troops to help the police.

I only sat in a hot house for 40 hours in 90 degree weather and it was miserable. But I had a roof, water, food, etc.

[Cookiely]

I have a problem with heat since I had a heat stroke as a child. I feel for these people. I would have lost my mind by now. One bullit fired and they stop all recovery efforts. I am heartsick. People are going to die needlessly. I have heard all the excuses. If buses can get in and out which they can then there is no excuse. Get those buses running none stop til the people are out.

[Brent]

Yes... this should not be happening in America. I know they are overwhelmed, but at least having the military in charge would be a lot easier and save more lives...

[sponger]

BUMP TO KEEP ACTIVE! Current numbers say it all!

[greeng13]

poll answer: YES

i could quote all the responses on this thread but why? i agree with all previous posts...(unless someone is posting right now that i don't agree with)

[TigerMo]

interesting info from: http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal ... ilcock.htm

......
Congress has also approved the use of the military in civilian law enforcement through the Civil Disturbance Statutes: 10 U.S.C., sections 331–334. These provisions permit the president to use military personnel to enforce civilian laws where the state has requested assistance or is unable to protect civil rights and property. In case of civil disturbance, the president must first give an order for the offenders to disperse. If the order is not obeyed, the president may then authorize military forces to make arrests and restore order. The scope of the Civil Disturbance Statutes is sufficiently broad to encompass civil disturbance resulting from terrorist or other criminal activity. It was these provisions that were relied upon to restore order using active-duty Army personnel following the Los Angeles “race riots” of the early 1990s.

Federal military personnel may also be used pursuant to the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C., section 5121, in times of natural disaster upon request from a state governor. In such an instance, the Stafford Act permits the president to declare a major disaster and send in military forces on an emergency basis for up to ten days to preserve life and property. While the Stafford Act authority is still subject to the criteria of active versus passive, it represents a significant exception to the Posse Comitatus Act’s underlying principle that the military is not a domestic police force auxiliary.

An infrequently cited constitutional power of the president provides an even broader basis for the president to use military forces in the context of homeland defense. This is the president’s inherent right and duty to preserve federal functions. In the past this has been recognized to authorize the president to preserve the freedom of navigable waterways and to put down armed insurrection. However, with the expansion of federal authority during this century into many areas formerly reserved to the states (transportation, commerce, education, civil rights) there is likewise an argument that the president’s power to preserve these “federal” functions has expanded as well. The use of federal troops in the South during the 1960s to preserve access to educational institutions for blacks was an exercise of this constitutional presidential authority.

[msbee]

[quote="sponger"]The governor needs to be impeached! Not imposing martial law is criminal. Unfortuantely the feds have their hands tied. I think in cases of National emergency their needs to be a way for the feds to superceede statesz rights.


yes, that governor should be impeached.

[Coredesat]

Before, I wasn't sure, but now I vote a resounding yes. Order MUST be restored if victims are to be rescued. It's hard to help a town when its people are shooting at you.

[streetsoldier]

It's VERY hard for police, State troopers, etc. to do their jobs when (a) they have no vehicles, (b) all radio communications are gone, (c) they are running out of ammunition, and (d) they are in the same "survive or die" state (food, water, etc.) as the thugs they are trying to control...w/o benefit of backup, jails, etc. Not to mention that the looters are better armed than the cops are.

It's hard enough when a cop HAS all these things...but to do the job without even basics is unthinkable! Those "blue shirts" are trying to do the impossible, as best they can...YES, the military needs to take over ASAP.

[shaggy]

more people could die from the delay in relief than from other causes.They should have ordered martial law from the start and maybe this would not have happened.

[Cape Fear Cane Watcher]

Yes. We can not let the lawless element keep us from savings thousands of others.