Talk:Timeline of Hurricane Katrina/Archive 1

Federalizing the National Guard

Just a few comments I want to make. First of all, the President of the United States does not need a Governor's permission to Federalize the National Guard. Eisenhower did it in Little Rock Arkansas to escort the black children to school. The governor was dead-set against it. I want to say President Kennedy did the same thing to protect civil rights workers. All the President needs is to know that the security of people is in jeopardy. Secondly, my Newsweek reports that Governor Blanco asked President Bush (by phone) to give her everything he had to help. That was I think Sunday night. A couple of days later, she said she did not want to give up authority over her guardsmen. So I am not a legal expert by any standard. I do think President Bush could've done more earlier under his own authority. Scott.

Scott, I gave your comments a section head to make it easier to add comments by section. You are dead right on President does not need Governor approval to call up the national guard, but generally a President does not do so unless there is clear and obvious need to do so. You may recall that early on, what people in the rest of the nation knew was there had supposedly been an evacuation before the hurricane struck, then right afterwards, all the local radio communications for first responders and emergency workers was non-functional, so no one in government had realized the scale of the people who were unable to evacuate (for whatever reasons), so the time line needs to show when they got educated about this, and how rapidly they took appropriate action. AlMac|^(talk) 20:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Scott, this answers most of your "questions". The president needs a lot more then "just knowing that people are in jeopardy". Per the constitution (always a reliable source): "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." These are the only reasons the president can federalize the national guard without a specific request of the governor. I would asume that if Bush had federalized the guard for one of those reasons without the request of the governor, that would be the only way they could be used. I.E. he federalizes them to execute the laws of the union.. they wouldn't be able to do relief missions while under federal control since the constitution doesn't allow for that. That's just conjecture though. But, your two examples of the president federalizing the guard without the permission of the governor would fall under "executing the laws of the union"

(This also answers Scotts comment regarding the federal army)Someone keeps adding that the federal army could have been called in without a specific request of the governor. But news articles are disagreeing with that: "Bush for instance is consitutionally barred from deploying federal troops in a state -- unless he is asked to by the Governor, who commands the state's National Guard." [1]here is another article that says a bit more on the subject [2] and CNN backs it up in this video of Governor Blanco: [3] If you watch the whole video, Scott, there is a part of it in which Blanco tries to claim that she asked Bush "for everything you've got" but the CNN reporter calls her on it and says as the governor she has to specifically request federal troops. The constitution is very clear about these things.

El C - you're an administrator... care to cite your scources that the federal Government can deploy active duty armed forces in a state without a request of the Governor? I can't find any. US Lawmakers are currently talking about allowing federal troops to become first responders and deploy without governors request... why are they talking about changing this law if it's currently allowed?

As the article states, a gubernatorial request is only required for armed forces to be deployed to perform law-enforcement duties - Posse Comitatus is very clear about that. They can be deployed without such a request if they are performing other duties, as happened in this case - the army began deploying troops to Louisiana on August 26. The military can and did undertake relief operations without a gubernatorial request under the Posse Comitatus Act. Evacuation is a grey area, since it would theoretically involve law-enforcement (the military could undertake such operations jointly with police or National Guard forces, though). The request is only needed - and was only made - for the military to engage in law-enforcement duties (in this case, combatting looters, and later, forcibly evacuating people who had remained behind in New Orleans). Why don't you ask CNN, if they really think the military can't deploy without a request, why it says it was deployed to Louisiana on August 26. Did Blanco's initial request actually serve to allow the military mobilisation, despite what various GOP-trained reporters have said? Did the army deploy illegally? Or is the Pentagon now lying to the nation?

Well, you have one thing incorrect for sure, which makes the rest of your "info" very circumspect: Under the Posse Comitatus act Armed forces cannot deploy to a state for law-enforcement duties even if a Governor requests it, except in 3 very specific circumstances none of which occured during Katrina (this is wrong in the article too).

No, you're wrong. The Posse Comitatus Act - which, as I said, is very clear that its proscriptions refer only to law-enforcement - prohibits the employment of armed forces to enforce the law except in "circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or act of Congress". The Constitution allows the military to be used, at the President's discretion, to prevent loss of life, protect civilian and federal property, and restore order. The military has rarely been used this way, but it can be. In addition, acts of Congress on the statute books allow the military to be deployed in law enforcement at the request of a state's governor or legislature, to enforce federal laws to protect citizens' Constitutional rights, and in the event of an imminent domestic nuclear, chemical or biological threat. All of this concerns law enforcement - there is no limitation on the use of the miitary in duties not involving law enforcement (such as emeergency relief operations, performing civilian jobs in the event of a strike [as happened with the air traffic control strikes in the 1980s, for instance], and so on).

Can you post a couple of mainstream articles showing that the regular army can deploy to a state without a specific request of the Governor? I posted three articles (one from CNN and one from Yahoo.com) that shows the military cannot deploy to a state without a request of the govneror. Can you show articles that regular army (not national Guard, which is controlled by the Governor) were deployed and performing duties (beyond planning so that they could be ready when the governor called) in NOLA on the 26th? . I do know the Governor herself said she didn't want to request regular army to come into LA because she didnt want to put people in jeopardy. Why would she think she had the power to "not request" them if you say it doesnt matter what she wants? Basically because she knows (even if you dont) that due to the federal nature of our consitution regular army can not be deployed to a state without specific request of a governor. I changed the two entries to something, hopefully more neutral, until we can come to some kind of consensus... Such as you finally learning the constitution :)

I don't what I can provide to prove a negative. There's nothing in the constitution preventing the deployment of armed forces in relief operations. As soon as a federal state of emergency was declared by the President, the armed forces were able to go into Louisiana and perform relief operations under FEMA's direction. The request from Blanco concerned law enforcement. She didn't want the military to be deployed in a law enforcement capacity - that's a judgmenet call, but given that she expected (wrongly, as it turned out) the federal authorities to approve the transfer of National Guard in a timely manner, and given that the National Guard are better trained for law enforcement than the military, I think it was probably the right one.

You are actualy right when you say troops cannot be deployed without a request, but Blanco issued that request on August 26, and the troops began arriving later that day in anticipation of the President complying with the request and declaring a state of emergency. It is only for law enforcement duties that a further request (declaring a breakdown in law and order) is appropriate - not absolutely necessary, as the President can send in troops to enforce law and order even without a state's request if the circumstances are right, but that has only been done a few times and it would have been very unusual for President Bush to do that on this occassion. Here's some further information from various sources:-

Dept. of the Army Field Manual 3-19.40, Chapter 10:

"In the US, the federal government is responsible for Emergency Services at all levels. It provides planning advice and coordinates research, equipment, and financial aid. State and local governments determine the allocation of these resources. In the event of an emergency, US forces are prepared to help civil authorities restore essential services, repair essential facilities and, if necessary, ensure national survival. Federal statutes and military regulations govern conditions for employing active component (AC) and United States Army Reserve (USAR) military forces. (See FM 100-19 for more information.)

[...]

"The active and US Army Rreserve forces used in disaster relief are under the command of their military superiors. Other military participation and the use of military resources occur on a mission-by-mission basis and end at the earliest practicable time. Commanders ensure that personnel participating in domestic assistance are not in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. This act prohibits the use of federal military personnel to enforce federal, state, or local laws unless expressly authorized by the Constitution or by an act of Congress. The act does not apply to state national guard (NG) forces unless they have been federalized. When placed on state active duty, NG forces (Army and Air) are under the C 2 of state authorities, not federal forces."

Field Manual 100-19, Chapter 3:

"The Stafford Act, 42 USC 5121, et seq, as amended, is the statutory authority for federal domestic disaster assistance. It empowers the President to establish a program for disaster preparedness and response, which the President has delegated to FEMA. The Stafford Act provides procedures for declaring an emergency or major disaster, as well as the type and amount of federal assistance available. The Act authorizes the President to provide DOD assets for relief once he formally declares an emergency or a major disaster. He may also provide DOD assets for emergency work on a limited basis prior to the declaration. DOD policy for providing domestic disaster assistance is contained in DOD Directive 3025.1, Military Support to Civil Authorities. Army policy is found in AR 500-60,Disaster Relief.

[...]

"Once a state requests aid, the President may declare an emergency or a major disaster, enabling the FEMA to act under the Federal Response Plan (FRP). The FRP is a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the FEMA and other federal agencies, including the DOD, to provide domestic disaster assistance. Under the FRP, a single federal agency is assigned primary responsibility for each of twelve ESFs. The FEMA orchestrates disaster relief through these ESFs. Each primary agency orchestrates the federal effort within its sphere of responsibility and may, if authorized by the FEMA, task other agencies for support."

[...]

Chapter 5:

"When the severity of a situation exceeds local and state capabilities, the governor can request that the President declare a disaster, leading to the commitment of federal resources. At that time, the FEMA takes the lead in coordinating federal assistance. The FEMA coordinates the federal government's response to state and local authorities for disasters and civil emergencies under the authority and provisions of The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. While the FEMA is the lead federal agency in most disasters, the DOE has the lead for civil radiological emergencies, and the EPA and the USCG share responsibility for chemical contaminations. Regardless of the disaster scenario, DOD can expect to support the lead federal agency."

Dept. of Defense Directive 3025.1:

"4.1.2. Under the Stafford Act, as amended (reference (e)), it is the policy of the Federal Government to provide an orderly and continuing means of supplemental assistance to State and local governments in their responsibilities to alleviate the suffering and damage that result from major disasters or emergencies. Upon declaring a major disaster or emergency under reference (e), the President may direct any Agency of the Federal Government to undertake missions and tasks (on either a reimbursable or non-reimbursable basis) to provide assistance to State and local agencies. The President appoints a Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO) to operate in the affected area, and delegates authority to the FCO. The President has delegated to the Director of FEMA the authority to appoint FCOs; and FEMA officials frequently serve as FCOs."

Finally, [4] 1997 article by a Judge Advocate presents the issue clearly and gives two examples from Hurricane Andrew, an incident where troops were deployed following a declaration of a state of emergency but without a proper request allowing the military to perform law-enforcement duties. The Posse Comitatus Act outlaws military law-enforcement operations on American soil except when allowed by the Constituion or by statute - statute allows the President to use the military to enforce the laws of the united states (with or without a gubernatorial request - though I think we're all agreed that precedented inhibits the President acting without such a request except in the case of a rebellion.)

The Stafford Act is applicable only within the United States and its territories, and comes into play when a state, usually through its governor, requests a presidential declaration of a state of emergency following a natural disaster. Once a state of emergency is declared, active-duty soldiers can be employed to respond to the crisis under the direction of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).[1] These situations present unique legal issues. In response to the almost total devastation wrought by Hurricane Andrew in Dade County, Florida, brigade-sized contingents of the 82d Airborne Division and 10th Mountain Division, both XVIII Airborne Corps assets, were deployed as Joint Task Force (JTF) Andrew under the provisions of the Stafford Act. Once deployed, they encountered a wide variety of contentious legal issues. First, these warfighters were confronted by the preeminent statutory proscription which controls US soldiers deployed within the United States. The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the Army and Air Force from enforcing civil criminal law within the United States.[2]

[...]

In South Florida, the legal question arose as to what soldiers should do if they encountered illegal immigrants attempting to avail themselves of the humanitarian services provided by the soldiers. It could be argued that illegal immigrants are status offenders whose very presence in the United States constitutes a continuing offense under the law, and who could be arrested by soldiers in the capacity of a "citizen arrest" of a perpetrator violating the law.[6] Because of the sensitivity of this situation, however, soldiers were directed to just ignore inquiring into the legal status of the citizens they encountered, and to treat everyone equally.[7] Similarly, the guidance as to how soldiers would provide security at relief centers was carefully drawn. Normally, DOD personnel may maintain the security of DOD installations. However, the DOD Life Support Centers established in Florida were inhabited almost entirely by civilians seeking relief. In light of Posse Comitatus, National Guard and local law enforcement personnel, not active-duty soldiers, were tasked to guard these sites.[8] These anomalous examples reflect the impractical, yet necessary, application of Posse Comitatus.

You are partially correct when you say the president can depoloy active duty forces to a state under the Stafford act. The part that you leave out is that the Governor must request them when making the declaration. If you read Blancos request that she filed under the Stafford act you will see there is no mention of requesting active duty foces.... and why would she, at this point she has no idea they will be necessary.. Even the link you posted: army.mil/usawc... indicates that a request of the Governor is necessary. Tenth Amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." While the constitution makes a couple of references as to when the regular army can be used domestically... not one of them deals with rescue missions after a hurricane (or similar), which means what according to the above? I've posted articles from yahoo news CNN Chatanoogan, (I searched in google and found millions, but only chose three to post) showing the Feds can not send the military into a state without the Governors request due to the constitution. You rely on half-truths showing that all those sources are false. There is no convincing you, so what's the point in trying? Lucky for me, most Americans know the feds cannot just send army into a state against the will of the Governor (which she admits to not wanting federal army) so whatever you want to post here.. feel free to continue to delude yourself.

And yet the military and the federal government disagree with you about that, as shown above and by reference to previous similar events. There is nothing in the constiution barring the deployment of armed forces in roles other than law enforcement, and the quotes above make it clear the declaration of emergency is taken as enough by the army and the Department of Defense. The military started their preparations on August 26 and were ready to go on August 29 but did not receive the go-ahead from FEMA until the evening of August 30. There may be good logistical reasons for that, but it had nothing to do with what the state authorities in Louisiana said or did. The military therefore started arriving the following day, August 31. Meanwhile, Blanco, also on that day, decided to do a u-turn and request the military also be used in law enforcement (something she previously didn't want to do). Some ideological warriors have spun these two things together, but they aren't connected.

Bush photo-op

Are these items really pertinent to a timeline of Hurricane Katrina?

• 29 August - Morning – President Bush shares birthday photo-op with Senator John McCain
• 29 August - 11AM — "Bush visits Arizona resort to promote Medicare drug benefit": “This new bill I signed says, if you’re a senior and you like the way things are today, you’re in good shape, don’t change. But, by the way, there’s a lot of different options for you. And we’re here to talk about what that means to our seniors.”

--timc | Talk 00:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

If Bush spent that morning kicking FEMA's ass, instead of saying cheese, probably hundreds more people would have been saved. Is the priority of POTUS relevant to the success of the relief effort of Katrina? Yes, I would think so. --Gebuhuka 00:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Why would he need to be "kicking FEMA's ass" prior to Katrina hitting? Considering the track record of FEMA in the recent past(see Hurricanes Charlie, Frances, Ivan, Jeanne, and Dennis), he had no reason to believe that they would have problems. Although the difference between Katrina and those previous five storms is where they hit. The other five all hit in Florida. Maybe we should be scrutinizing the local and state governments of Louisiana here rather than President Bush. --Holderca1 02:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

While I strongly agree with the spirit behind that statement, I note that Bush's response and/or lack thereof is notable on its own, and a timeline devoted to him, can also depict the latter, whereas here, we are interested in the former (i.e. as directly relating to Hurricane Katrina). That said, if he issued statements relating to the Hurricane at that time (and I would be truly amazed to learn he said nothing at all on that front throughout September 29), then these items can and should be re-entered and modified with those qualifications in mind. El_C 01:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

That was my motivation for starting George W. Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina to document the actions/inaction by the commander-in-chief during this national tragedy. As a timeline of happened events, it could maintain neutrality by staying factual, and could complement articles like Political effects of Hurricane Katrina which is filled with POVs and speculations. Given the facts, readers can formed their own judgement on Bush's responses. Unfortunately George W. Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina is up for vfd and it's my fault because I don't have the time to expand it. --Gebuhuka 01:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about it; it makes sense that someone has already initiated such an effort. I voted keep. El_C 01:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• In theory, if the top executive has put good people in charge of Homeland Security, FEMA, the Pentagon, Department of Transportation, NOAA, etc. then he not need to micromanage them. However it can be critical to the people to know when he found out there was a problem, and what action he took to make sure it was being properly taken care of.
  • Ditto relevant people in the various agencies on down the chain of command. We want to be assured that they were promptly informed of the scale of the disaster, and that they did appropriate followup to make sure that what was being done was appropriate and timely.
• Urban legend arrives ... so for example after 9/11 we are told that Bush's reaction was "That is one lousy pilot!" so because of such "stories" it becomes critical to know what exactly he said when about things, so we can distinguish truth from fantasy.

AlMac|^(talk) 17:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Something missing

I think this is a great page. However, as I was reading it, it was jarring to come upon the Astrodome being full without any explanation of why. There is no entry in the timeline for when bus evacuations started after the flooding. Sorry, I don't know the date for that, but it's important that it be there.

Evacuate where and when

• There was a lag time in getting relief to the people at the various designated shelters ... Superdome, Convention Center, and also where people got to the highway. The time line should indicate when people started arriving at these places, when relief started arriving there, when buses helicopters etc. started moving people out of them, when they were finally cleared out, and how many people.
• There was a lag time in finding some place to evacuate people to. The Houston Astrodome was the first shelter made available. There are now hundreds all over the nation. As they went into use, the news media not told about all of them, because some people with private transportation were going there directly, and they filling up, before the busses got there.
  • Perhaps a chart some place with population figures associated with the disaster area before landfall, and where those evacuees ended up, by state.

AlMac|^(talk) 20:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Mark Wills' guitar

Shouldn't this article make at least passing mention of the near-infamous photo of George Bush playing Mark Wills' guitar the day after Katrina struck the Gulf Coast? I've no idea whether or not said photo actually had any significant effect on public opinion, but it's undeniably one of the more memorable images associated with the whole fiasco, particularly on the internet. And documenting ubiquitous PoV, in as NPoV a fashion as possible, is one of the cardinal functions of any encyclopedia.

Or is this aspect of public opinion tangential to this article? With George W. Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina deleted, I'm not entirely sure where this sort of factoid should go.

Also posted to Political_effects_of_Hurricane_Katrina. There seems to be some overlap between the two articles, and I suspect this question presently falls under their joint purview.

The photo is a fake ... see http://www.snopes.com/katrina/photos/recreate.asp ... briefly, there are people who deliberately create photos of government officials doing things they never did, then circulate those photos on the Internet to undermine their credibility. AlMac|^(talk) 20:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

The photo of Bush with a guitar in New Orleans is fake, however the photo of Bush with a guitar and Mark Wills at Naval Base Coronado is real.

Buses/Superdome/Food/Dates

"Saturday, August 27: New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin calls for a voluntary evacuation of the city. Although current Louisiana Emergency Evacuation guidelines allow use of public transportation, no idle school buses are used to transport. The emergency plans rely on citizens to bring their own 3 day supply of food and water to the Superdome and Convention Center." and "Sunday, August 28: 10AM CDT - Mandatory evacuation is ordered for New Orleans City by Mayor Nagin. No public transportation is afforded the mostly poor citizens."

would appear to be contradicted by this dated the 28th, notably:

"As many as 100,000 inner-city residents didn't have the means to leave, and an untold number of tourists were stranded by the closing of the airport. The city arranged buses to take people to 10 last-resort shelters, including the Superdome.

Nagin also dispatched police and firefighters to rouse people out with sirens and bullhorns, and even gave them the authority to commandeer vehicles to aid in the evacuation.

The 70,000-seat Superdome, the home of football's Saints, opened at daybreak Sunday, giving first priority to frail, elderly people on walkers, some with oxygen tanks. They were told to bring enough food, water and medicine to last up to five days." Auz 11:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in Governor <-> Bush exchange plus questions regarding FEMA timeline

I go by Governor Blanco's request ( http://gov.louisiana.gov/Disaster%20Relief%20Request.pdf ).

The article in it's current form states that Gov. Blanco requested the president declare a state of emergency. THIS IS WRONG. in her request Gov. Blanco requested he declared a major disaster. Bush did not follow that request. Instead he declared a state of emergency. (I'll correct that in the article)

I am not familiar with the procedures, but I suspect a state of emergency is not the same as a major disaster.

In the request it reads: "Parishes expected to receive major damage based on the anticipated track of Hurricane Katrina are: Ascension, Assumption, Jefferson, Lafourche, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, St. John, St. Tammany, Tangipahoa, Terrebonne, and Washington." Emphasis mine.

NONE of these parishes are mentioned in the linked FEMA designated counties ( http://www.fema.gov/news/eventcounties.fema?id=4786 ) from the 27th. The areas listed in the FEMA "designated counties" are listed in the governors request for help as "Parishes that are affected by the evacuation of persons from the southeastern parishes".

    FEMA split Blanco's request into at least two parts.
    Here is the second part, two days later.
    Here is the parish list, which includes Jefferson and Orleans.
    (Hope I added this commment correctly.) GJM 68.105.3.243 22:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Could it be that the declaration of an emergency just means FEMA was to help with dealing with the aftermath, but NOT with desaster relief?

Which would also explain, why FEMA was discouraging help efforts directed towards the devastated area. They simply expected some other agency to step in and order *them* what to let through and where to go and help.

Anybody know of any resources, where one could veri-/falsify the possible link between the declared states (emergency/disaster) and FEMA / Homeland Security duties?

The article would then read: August, 27th: FEMA was only assigned to dealing with evacuated persons, due to the lower threat level set by the president.

August 29th: Due to the declaration of state of emergency, FEMA is now in charge of the whole desaster area. This includes a 72 hour timespan where the cost for rescue operations are entirely covered by federal funds.

The state of emergency and a major disaster seem indeed to differ, but only in the effect that in a major disaster the feds will cover 75% of the cost, see ( http://web.archive.org/web/20040814023657/http://lacoa.org/proclamations.shtml ). could this have been all about the nookie?

from the washington post [5] There is a FEMA program called the National Urban Search and Rescue Response System (US&R) -- now part of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate (EP&R) of the Department of Homeland Security. According to federal legislation, it "provides specialized lifesaving assistance during major disasters or emergencies that the President declares under the Stafford Act. US&R operational activities include locating, extricating and providing on-site medical treatment to victims trapped in collapsed structures, victims of weapons of mass destruction events, and when assigned, performing incident command or other operational activities."

So where was the US&R?

from [6] "The EP&R Directorate continues FEMA's efforts to reduce the loss of life and property and to protect our nation's institutions..."

So is FEMA just a remaining stump and not a real agency and the EP&R Directorate has to make all the important decisions (like deploying the US&R)? Could that be the reason why FEMA was initially preparing for deployment only in the outskirts of the affected areas?