"Socialism would gather all power to the supreme party and party leaders, rising like stately pinnacles above their vast bureaucracies of civil servants no longer servants, no longer civil." - Sir Winston Churchill

Tuesday, September 06, 2005

Hurricane Katrina: Questions and Answers

It’s time for a crash course in US government and current events my friends. Any questions?

Q – Why did it take so long for the federal government to respond?
A – Actually this was the fastest federal response to any natural disaster in US history. You have to keep in mind that prior to the levies breaking, President Bush was on the phone urging the Mayor to evacuate the city. The President also urged the Governor to declare a state-of-emergency. This is the first step to obtaining federal assistance. The Mayor later ordered an evacuation yet, in hindsight, it was already too late to be effective. Additionally the feds began preparing for a response two days before Katrina made landfall.
Q – Two questions. Why didn’t Bush order the evacuation or force the Mayor to do so and if the feds were in place two days before why did it take 24hours for the relief to reach the victims?
A – I’m glad you asked. The federal government has no authority over State and local governments. The only time the feds can assume such control is in cases of national security yet they still have to work with State and Local officials. Barring a national security crisis, the feds can only make recommendations. As for the time-lag in getting relief to the victims. Understand that the staging areas were at a distance from the coast. This was simple logic. Had they been in the expected disaster area prior to the event they would have been wiped away along with everything else thus defeating the purpose. What was not anticipated were the logistical problems associated with getting the aid to the victims in the wake of the levies breaking. Additionally, it did not take 24hours for the feds to respond. It took several hours for the Governor to request federal assistance.
Q – Why didn’t the feds simply take control of the situation? Didn’t they see that the people were suffering? Why all the bureaucracy and red-tape?
A – Let me answer these in reverse order. The fact that there is a separation of power between federal and state governments is not bureaucracy. This is a reasonable and legitimate system designed to safeguard the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. There are specific limits placed upon federal authority and for good reason. We live in a system wherein laws rule rather than men. You should thank God or accident of birth for that. I personally do not want to live under the rule of a dictator, benevolent or otherwise. The feds (Bush) saw the problem but lacked the requisite authority to respond without a specific request from the state. In case you are wondering, the answer is, “No.” Bush could not assume control under the guise of a national security crisis. Sorry but the ends do not justify the means.
Q – Couldn’t Bush have ordered the National Guard into action then? He does have control over the military doesn’t he?
A – Yes and No. The National Guard are State troops. The federal government has control over federal troops, Army, Navy, Airforce and Marines. The Coast Guard is actually a police agency and therefore free to perform any and all actions (i.e. search and rescue) which fall under its charter. Hence when performing their chartered duties, No specific federal or state order is required. The National Guard receives its orders from the State and can only be controlled by the feds if the State so authorises it. Again, in cases of national security, the feds may assume control absent permission from the State. Federal troops cannot be tasked within a State without permission from the State government. Additionally, they cannot perform police functions. This is the Posse Comitatas rule.
Q – Well, I don’t know about all the laws but one thing is clear: if we cant handle something like this how are we going to handle something like a dirty bomb?
A – Excellent point. This was a natural disaster and as such it is within the jurisdiction of the state. For this reason the federal government could not act in the absence of State permission. On the other hand, a terrorist attack such as a dirty bomb is a national security issue and is automatically within the jurisdiction of the federal government under the Constitution. The feds would not have to wait for State approval to do such things as federalizing the National Guard and implementing a disaster relief plan. I have heard this comparison several times over the weekend so I’m happy to have had an opportunity to respond to it.
Q – That’s all fine and good but you have to admit that there was a lot of red-tape that contributed to the delay in getting help to the victims.
A – That’s actually a statement, not a question but I’ll accept it. This may simply be a matter of semantics but I’m not sure what you mean by red-tape. I’m certain that there was considerable disorganization in the immediate aftermath of the events. There was little or no interagency communication and at that point, no aerial recon had been performed. Hence the first-responders were flying blind and therefore unaware of the scope of the disaster, the exact location of victims and the best access routes to the victims they aware of. They first had to gather intelligence. Second, workout a plan of action. Third, they had to workout the logistics. I’m not sure how many of you are familiar with the military but what you call red-tape (in most cases), the military calls intelligence gathering, effective planning and logistics.

That’s all the time we have for now but please keep those questions coming.

No comments:

Post a Comment