A Good Debate

[sfga6970]

This is going to be a good debate between State's Rights and the rescue and recovery of victims of a disaster. Which is more important? If the State or Local Government is incapacited or unable to respond quickly, should the Federal Government be allowed to use it's resources to save lives even if they haven't been requested to do so by the Mayor or Governor?

Storms Spawn Debate on Military
Associated Press | September 26, 2005
WASHINGTON - Military units have been battling the ravages of hurricane winds and flooding for nearly four weeks along the Gulf Coast. Now their leaders must navigate a different turbulent path: Congress.


Political leaders led by President Bush are considering how and when the military should take greater control of relief efforts during national disasters. And one answer may be to ensure that the president has the authority to bring in the armed forces during extraordinary circumstances.

"We're going to look back at (Hurricane) Katrina as a turning point," Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said Sunday. "We need the military, because of its extraordinary capabilities, to be ready to play a much more active role. I don't think it's going to be that difficult from a congressional point of view."

He said Congress must make it clear the president is authorized to use the federal military in a crisis, although that may not require legislation.

The question, according to White House and Pentagon officials, is when.

"If you have a situation like a Hurricane Katrina where the state and local first-responders, to a large extent, are victims themselves and somewhat overwhelmed, then what do you do in a situation like that," said White House press secretary Scott McClellan.

"Should there be some sort of a trigger that says 'OK, the federal government needs to marshal all their resources quickly and get in there and stabilize the situation.' And it's the Department of Defense that has the capability to do that."

Both he and Lieberman said the trigger would be an extraordinary catastrophe.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, sounded a sharp dissent.

"I don't want the federal government to take over disaster response, believe me," he said in a telephone interview from his home in suburban Houston.

DeLay said he could not support a system that did not allow local first responders to remain in charge during a catastrophe. Asked why, he responded: "Bureaucracy. Bureaucracy. Bureaucracy."

Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., sounded a note of caution as well.

She told CNN that while the military has a strong role to play, "We do have a democracy and a citizenship that has elected mayors, county commissioners and governors, particularly. I'm not sure the governors association or all the mayors in America would be willing to sort of step aside."

But Landrieu's Louisiana colleague, Republican Sen. David Vitter, said the military was best equipped to respond to emergencies as massive as Katrina and Hurricane Rita.

Others, including Senate Armed Services Committee chairman John Warner, R-Va., have said Congress may review the Posse Comitatus Act, a post-Civil War law that prohibits the military from performing law enforcement duties.

Changing the law would require congressional action, which would trigger debate over how to do it without treading on states' rights.

Lieberman said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told senators last week that it may not be necessary to change the Posse Comitatus Act because the National Guard is already allowed to do law enforcement.

Under existing law, a state's governor is chiefly responsible for disaster response, including control over the state's National Guard. In a crisis, the Guard would be working with active duty troops.

Rumsfeld has not detailed any proposed changes, but he is considering a wide range of options for how the military could be used in domestic emergencies. They could include changing the relationship between federal and state military authorities.

After Katrina, there was some discussion about whether Lt. Gen. Russel Honore - head of the military task force for Hurricane Katrina - should play a dual role and command the active-duty troops and the National Guard. Pentagon officials have so far declined to say any more about that idea.

But in a teleconference Sunday with Bush, military leaders involved directly with the hurricane relief said they believe something must be done. Maj. Gen. M. Scott Mayes, leader of the military's air component in the hurricane relief effort, told the president that a national plan is needed to have a faster response and save more lives. And Maj. Gen. John White, a member of the military task force for Hurricane Rita, described search-and-rescue operations after Katrina as a "train wreck."

"With a national plan, we'll have a quick jump-start and an opportunity to save more people," said White, the commander of the Alabama Air National Guard.

Meanwhile, military commanders said Navy and Air Force units battled high winds and rain to rescue stranded residents in western Louisiana and Texas.

[Toome]

This is a good debate topic. I don't have a problem with mobilizing troops for rescue and recovery efforts. By definition, the military is supposed to be capable of tailoring itself to any mission, task organizing itself accordingly, and moving out as quickly as possible. No other agency in government has that capability. Furthermore, the military is designed to function under all weather conditions, in the face of intense adversity to include combat, and to perform the sort of tasks necessary in a recovery effort: build bridges, roads, buildings, move refugees to safety, organize traffic throughout the area of operations, the list is virtually endless.

However, there is a limit to this and it comes to law enforcement. Martial law is something that should be declared only as a last resort and with great reluctance. Troops are, first and foremost, warriors. And anytime you involve warriors in a law enforcement role, the potential for disaster increases. I don't like the idea of combat troops being placed in a situation of shooting fellow Americans. As a general principle, it goes against the grain of what our forefathers intended. I'm not too terribly concerned that our troops would abuse this authority. During the LA riots in 1992, military commanders who had the proper Congressional authority to enforce the law, had a tendency to not exercise that authority and refer such matters to civilian law enforcement. LTG Honore followed suit in New Orleans by making it clear to his soldiers that they were not in Iraq and to keep their weapons pointed down. In other words, Honore is reluctant to assume any law enforcement responsibility, and I see this as a healthy thing. For this reason, I don't think any changes to Posse Comitatus ought to be made nor do I think Congress should change the role of the military.

In essence, I don't have a problem with the military getting involved in rescue, recovery and to a certain degree, restoration of law and order efforts. When the line is crossed of actual law enforcement by military troops, then I become uncomfortable even though men like LTG Russel Honore have proven themselves to be responsible leaders.

[sfga6970]

That was a great response Toome and I totally agree with you. The military should not be used as law enforcement, but I do feel that their resources available were held back and could have been used earlier for search and rescue to save many of the people who were lost in the initial stages of this tragedy. I truly believe that the local authorities waited too long to ask for assistance and could have prevented many deaths by making decisions immediately.

The conduct of the Coast Guard was awesome. For the smallest Service, they showed that they were the "biggest" in their ability to respond rapidly. We have some of the finest young American men and women in that Organization.

[Caldric]

Ever see the movie The Siege.

When Bruce Willis states in regards to being law enforcement, "The Army is a broad sword, not a scalpel. Trust me, senator - you do not want the Army in an American city."

Even though it is a movie I think the point is valid.

Katrina was an unusual circumstance of mistakes and bad communications. I see no reason to use the event to change the process that is in place today and has been in place for many years. With a normal intelligent Governor there would be nothing to debate about.

[Woodmonkey]

IMO, federal troops should never go into any state for any reason without the express invitation of the governor of that state. The only exception would be if the elected governor (and whoever is designated next in line) of that state is incapacitated.

The federal government should not have any more power than it now has. There is are reasons the Founding Fathers limited its authority and those reasons are even more critical now.

[SherryGrace]

I believe that Louisiana was at the mercy of an idiot governor. I think there should be SOME POINT that the federal government can override the stupidity of a governor.

[Toome]

SherryGrace,

I agree that it's a difficult proposition whenever you have a state governor who doesn't know when to ask for help. However, by allowing the federal government to step in "for the state's good," it opens the door for the federal government to also intervene in other matters even when the state government does not want that kind of "help." We get enough federal intervention as it is already. The big difference here is that this involves the deployment of military troops, and that can get kind of scary if not monitored tightly.