Why is the US Military not showing force in NO?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Originally posted by: sixone
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: Jzero
Originally posted by: yllus
~20000 National Guard soldiers are being deployed into the area, but I don't think you guys really want to see the city turn into one giant bloodbath.
I don't think it would become a bloodbath...make an example out of a few people and things will quiet down.
With racial sentiment already bubbling close to the surface, they might have to pick their examples rather carefully. Besides, the threat of being shot on sight isn't going to stop these people until the soldier is fifteen feet away and pointing his rifle at their head.

In a perfect world, of course, I'd say shoot 'em all.
All we need is video of three or four black people getting shot in the south. You know Al-Jazeera would run that tape on an endless loop for the next week and a half.
I knew someone would understand what I meant.

Not that it's solely black people who're doing the looting, but right now... if you shoot dead even one black man (or God forbid a woman) there's going to be hell to pay despite how justified the kill was.
 

Hammer

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
13,217
1
81
Originally posted by: yellowfiero
Posse Comitatus Act

It generally prohibits Federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under Federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The original act only referred to the Army, but the Air Force was added in 1956 and the Navy and Marine Corps have been included by a regulation of the Department of Defense. This law is mentioned whenever it appears that the Department of Defense is interfering in domestic disturbances.

There are a number of exceptions to the act. These include:

* National Guard units while under the authority of the governor of a state;
* Troops when used pursuant to the Federal authority to quell domestic violence as was the case during the 1992 Los Angeles riots;
* The President of the United States can waive this law in an emergency;


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

Martial law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Martial law is the system of rules that takes effect (usually after a formal declaration) when a military authority takes control of the normal administration of justice (and usually of the whole state).

Martial law is instituted most often when it becomes necessary to favor the activity of military authorities and organizations, usually for urgent unforeseen needs, and when the normal institutions of justice either cannot function or could be deemed too slow or too weak for the new situation; e.g., due to war, major natural disaster, civil disorder, in occupied territory, or after a coup d'état. The need to preserve the public order during an emergency is the essential goal of martial law. However, declaration of martial law is also sometimes used by dictatorships, especially military dictatorships, to enforce their rule.

Usually martial law reduces some of the personal rights ordinarily granted to the citizen, limits the length of the trial processes, and prescribes more severe penalties than ordinary law. In many countries martial law prescribes the death penalty for certain crimes, even if ordinary law doesn't contain that crime or punishment in its system.

In many countries martial law imposes particular rules, one of which is curfew. Often, under this system, the administration of justice is left to military tribunals, called courts-martial. The suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is likely to occur.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law
 

AdamSnow

Diamond Member
Nov 21, 2002
5,736
0
76
Originally posted by: new2AMD
Why does everyone forget that our military cant spring into action while being deployed in Afghanistan (remember that war?) and Iraq.

Yes, we forgot... the US Government has such poor planning that EVERY soldier is in one of those two countries...

Go to P&N...
 

new2AMD

Diamond Member
Jul 18, 2001
5,312
0
0
Originally posted by: AdamSnow
Originally posted by: new2AMD
Why does everyone forget that our military cant spring into action while being deployed in Afghanistan (remember that war?) and Iraq.

Yes, we forgot... the US Government has such poor planning that EVERY soldier is in one of those two countries...

Go to P&N...

the thread is here. Im not making a statement against the govt. Itsmore about the fact noone reports about the front in afghanistan
 

SarcasticDwarf

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2001
9,574
2
76
Originally posted by: new2AMD
Originally posted by: CadetLee
Originally posted by: new2AMD
Why does everyone forget that our military cant spring into action while being deployed in Afghanistan (remember that war?) and Iraq.

Looks like someone forgot to read the thread before posting...seems to be a trend lately..

I read it. Just cuz you dont like someone pointing it out doesnt mean you own the thread.


Actually, they can. The NG is the group that handles stuff like this. They are activated at the discretion of the governor of each state. I know my state (Wisconsin) has activated parts of its NG and are sending them there. I believe all states still have at least 60% of their NG personell at home.
 

CocoGdog

Senior member
May 31, 2000
848
0
0
Originally posted by: CadetLee
Originally posted by: CocoGdog
Originally posted by: batmanuel
Originally posted by: yllus
Who the hell snipes at a hospital in a natural disaster situation? Weirdness.

Someone too ignorant to not have gotten the hell out of town on Sunday.

What would you do - if you're poor and have no transportation and accomodation. ie, take the bus everywhere, money for hotels, friends/family to go to? NO was very big crime area before disaster hit, not very wealthy area to boot. People who were rich/middle class law abiding probably headed north.



Good point. Oh well, the only thing that people who don't live there can do is donate...

First off, I wouldn't shoot at a hospital...

 

bradruth

Lifer
Aug 9, 2002
13,479
2
81
The constant looting and violence isn't helping the already horrible disaster. Use martial law and put down the human garbage that's causing chaos and hindering recovery.
 

imported_nautique

Senior member
Jul 14, 2004
346
0
0
I agree...anyone looting should be given one warning and if they don't then they are arrested or shot. And people with guns firing at their fellow citizens when we are at war are just plain stupid and someone should shoot them!
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: new2AMD
Why does everyone forget that our military cant spring into action while being deployed in Afghanistan (remember that war?) and Iraq.

Cause you can't move a freaking Navy Ship from the east coast or west coast loaded with troops and supplies to New Orleans in only a couple of days. Nothing to do with our current military deployments and everything to do with basic logistics.
 

sixone

Lifer
May 3, 2004
25,030
5
61
Originally posted by: nautique
I agree...anyone looting should be given one warning and if they don't then they are arrested or shot. And people with guns firing at their fellow citizens when we are at war are just plain stupid and someone should shoot them!

If crime were the only issue, I'm sure that would be done. Unfortunately, race trumps all.

 

jlee

Lifer
Sep 12, 2001
48,518
223
106
Originally posted by: new2AMD
Originally posted by: CadetLee
Originally posted by: new2AMD
Why does everyone forget that our military cant spring into action while being deployed in Afghanistan (remember that war?) and Iraq.

Looks like someone forgot to read the thread before posting...seems to be a trend lately..

I read it. Just cuz you dont like someone pointing it out doesnt mean you own the thread.

There are over 20,000 military guys there already - WTF do you want to do, pull 100,000 more from Iraq? Good luck supporting a hundred thousand troops with an already stressed support system..
 

SarcasticDwarf

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2001
9,574
2
76
Originally posted by: CadetLee
Originally posted by: new2AMD
Originally posted by: CadetLee
Originally posted by: new2AMD
Why does everyone forget that our military cant spring into action while being deployed in Afghanistan (remember that war?) and Iraq.

Looks like someone forgot to read the thread before posting...seems to be a trend lately..

I read it. Just cuz you dont like someone pointing it out doesnt mean you own the thread.

There are over 20,000 military guys there already - WTF do you want to do, pull 100,000 more from Iraq? Good luck supporting a hundred thousand troops with an already stressed support system..

You are comparing apples to oranges. Supporting units on another continent who are in combat is difficult. Supporting troops who are not going to be in combat on their own soil is not a problem.
 

DaShen

Lifer
Dec 1, 2000
10,710
1
0
Bush needs to waive any restrictions on the military in NO, so they can go ape-$h!t on those bastards.
 

Accipiter22

Banned
Feb 11, 2005
7,942
2
0
Originally posted by: CadetLee
Originally posted by: new2AMD
Originally posted by: CadetLee
Originally posted by: new2AMD
Why does everyone forget that our military cant spring into action while being deployed in Afghanistan (remember that war?) and Iraq.

Looks like someone forgot to read the thread before posting...seems to be a trend lately..

I read it. Just cuz you dont like someone pointing it out doesnt mean you own the thread.

There are over 20,000 military guys there already - WTF do you want to do, pull 100,000 more from Iraq? Good luck supporting a hundred thousand troops with an already stressed support system..


though i'm sure they'd like to come home ;)
 

SarcasticDwarf

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2001
9,574
2
76
Originally posted by: Accipiter22
Originally posted by: CadetLee
Originally posted by: new2AMD
Originally posted by: CadetLee
Originally posted by: new2AMD
Why does everyone forget that our military cant spring into action while being deployed in Afghanistan (remember that war?) and Iraq.

Looks like someone forgot to read the thread before posting...seems to be a trend lately..

I read it. Just cuz you dont like someone pointing it out doesnt mean you own the thread.

There are over 20,000 military guys there already - WTF do you want to do, pull 100,000 more from Iraq? Good luck supporting a hundred thousand troops with an already stressed support system..


though i'm sure they'd like to come home ;)

Not really
 

jlee

Lifer
Sep 12, 2001
48,518
223
106
Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
Originally posted by: CadetLee
Originally posted by: new2AMD
Originally posted by: CadetLee
Originally posted by: new2AMD
Why does everyone forget that our military cant spring into action while being deployed in Afghanistan (remember that war?) and Iraq.

Looks like someone forgot to read the thread before posting...seems to be a trend lately..

I read it. Just cuz you dont like someone pointing it out doesnt mean you own the thread.

There are over 20,000 military guys there already - WTF do you want to do, pull 100,000 more from Iraq? Good luck supporting a hundred thousand troops with an already stressed support system..

You are comparing apples to oranges. Supporting units on another continent who are in combat is difficult. Supporting troops who are not going to be in combat on their own soil is not a problem.

So we should just drag them all across the world overnight, when there are already thousands upon thousands deployed? I don't think so..but hey - you armchair experts must all know what's best, eh?

I don't know what they should do - but I really don't think pulling out of Iraq/Afghanistan is going to solve the problem.
 

SarcasticDwarf

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2001
9,574
2
76
Originally posted by: CadetLee
Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
Originally posted by: CadetLee
Originally posted by: new2AMD
Originally posted by: CadetLee
Originally posted by: new2AMD
Why does everyone forget that our military cant spring into action while being deployed in Afghanistan (remember that war?) and Iraq.

Looks like someone forgot to read the thread before posting...seems to be a trend lately..

I read it. Just cuz you dont like someone pointing it out doesnt mean you own the thread.

There are over 20,000 military guys there already - WTF do you want to do, pull 100,000 more from Iraq? Good luck supporting a hundred thousand troops with an already stressed support system..

You are comparing apples to oranges. Supporting units on another continent who are in combat is difficult. Supporting troops who are not going to be in combat on their own soil is not a problem.

So we should just drag them all across the world overnight, when there are already thousands upon thousands deployed? I don't think so..but hey - you armchair experts must all know what's best, eh?

I don't know what they should do - but I really don't think pulling out of Iraq/Afghanistan is going to solve the problem.

<sarcasm> Right, because I know absolutely nothing about the military. </sarcasm>
 

brian_riendeau

Platinum Member
Oct 15, 1999
2,256
0
0
Regardless of how many troops may or may not be there, what is availible should be actively aiding in the defense of rescue attempts. When a rescue helicoptert gets shot at, flying away to cry about it does not help when people are close to death on the ground. Same thing with the bus routes that have now stopped, send military escorta alongside them, shoot to kill to keep that bus moving.

The longer this type of action takes, the more people will die on the ground and the more empowered the hooligans will feel.

 

jlee

Lifer
Sep 12, 2001
48,518
223
106
Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
Originally posted by: CadetLee
Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
Originally posted by: CadetLee
Originally posted by: new2AMD
Originally posted by: CadetLee
Originally posted by: new2AMD
Why does everyone forget that our military cant spring into action while being deployed in Afghanistan (remember that war?) and Iraq.

Looks like someone forgot to read the thread before posting...seems to be a trend lately..

I read it. Just cuz you dont like someone pointing it out doesnt mean you own the thread.

There are over 20,000 military guys there already - WTF do you want to do, pull 100,000 more from Iraq? Good luck supporting a hundred thousand troops with an already stressed support system..

You are comparing apples to oranges. Supporting units on another continent who are in combat is difficult. Supporting troops who are not going to be in combat on their own soil is not a problem.

So we should just drag them all across the world overnight, when there are already thousands upon thousands deployed? I don't think so..but hey - you armchair experts must all know what's best, eh?

I don't know what they should do - but I really don't think pulling out of Iraq/Afghanistan is going to solve the problem.

<sarcasm> Right, because I know absolutely nothing about the military. </sarcasm>

Hey - this is ATOT. For all I know, you could be a 13yo punk, or a 55yo 30-year military veteran. *shrug* However, I would expect that if you did have a military background, you wouldn't be saying that it's a good idea to just up and yank guys halfway across the world when there are thousands upon thousands already available.
 

ZippyDan

Platinum Member
Sep 28, 2001
2,141
1
81
the question i have is whats taking so long? i dont doubt that the USA both fed and state governments, currently have the resources on hand to deal with the situation effectively, the problem is getting those resources into place

imo, the current situation makes it seem like they did not have a good contingency plan for the aftermath, but i could be wrong. this really annoys me and i would like to know what exactly those in charge were planning for

i dont think overseas commitments had anything to do with the slow response time, i do worry that a lack of planning has resulted in the delays tho

in three areas the government seems to have been very lacking: 1. evacuation, 2. repair, 3. security. of course, its possible that 1 and 2 are being slowed by a lack of 3. but as an example of how repair might trump all other concerns, with the levees such an important part of the defense of New Orleans (and lets face it if the city werent underwater the situation wouldnt be nearly as bad), why were there not plans ALREADY in place to IMMEDIATELY repair any damage to the levees with helicopters or barges (as they are only getting around to now)? it seems to me that if the government had anticipated these situations then action shouldve been taken the next day

so there are two basic possibilities here

1. failure to anticipate need results in unacceptable delays
2. the anticipation and plans were there, but there are unavoidable logistic delays no matter what

i certainly hope 1. was not the case

as a future concern, i wonder how something like this can happen to a 21st century city of the US. certainly i hope NO's new levees will be 4 times higher and 10x stronger along with 100x more pumps that are also more reliable. i mean is there any excuse for this to happen again or am i overestimating our technology? of course im assuming no money will be spared toward making sure this doesnt happen again

~Zippy!
 

SarcasticDwarf

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2001
9,574
2
76
Originally posted by: CadetLee
Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
Originally posted by: CadetLee
Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
Originally posted by: CadetLee
Originally posted by: new2AMD
Originally posted by: CadetLee
Originally posted by: new2AMD
Why does everyone forget that our military cant spring into action while being deployed in Afghanistan (remember that war?) and Iraq.

Looks like someone forgot to read the thread before posting...seems to be a trend lately..

I read it. Just cuz you dont like someone pointing it out doesnt mean you own the thread.

There are over 20,000 military guys there already - WTF do you want to do, pull 100,000 more from Iraq? Good luck supporting a hundred thousand troops with an already stressed support system..

You are comparing apples to oranges. Supporting units on another continent who are in combat is difficult. Supporting troops who are not going to be in combat on their own soil is not a problem.

So we should just drag them all across the world overnight, when there are already thousands upon thousands deployed? I don't think so..but hey - you armchair experts must all know what's best, eh?

I don't know what they should do - but I really don't think pulling out of Iraq/Afghanistan is going to solve the problem.

<sarcasm> Right, because I know absolutely nothing about the military. </sarcasm>

Hey - this is ATOT. For all I know, you could be a 13yo punk, or a 55yo 30-year military veteran. *shrug* However, I would expect that if you did have a military background, you wouldn't be saying that it's a good idea to just up and yank guys halfway across the world when there are thousands upon thousands already available.

I was not saying that.
 

SarcasticDwarf

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2001
9,574
2
76
Originally posted by: ZippyDan
the question i have is whats taking so long? i dont doubt that the USA both fed and state governments, currently have the resources on hand to deal with the situation effectively, the problem is getting those resources into place

imo, the current situation makes it seem like they did not have a good contingency plan for the aftermath, but i could be wrong. this really annoys me and i would like to know what exactly those in charge were planning for

i dont think overseas commitments had anything to do with the slow response time, i do worry that a lack of planning has resulted in the delays tho

in three areas the government seems to have been very lacking: 1. evacuation, 2. repair, 3. security. of course, its possible that 1 and 2 are being slowed by a lack of 3. but as an example of how repair might trump all other concerns, with the levees such an important part of the defense of New Orleans (and lets face it if the city werent underwater the situation wouldnt be nearly as bad), why were there not plans ALREADY in place to IMMEDIATELY repair any damage to the levees with helicopters or barges (as they are only getting around to now)? it seems to me that if the government had anticipated these situations then action shouldve been taken the next day

so there are two basic possibilities here

1. failure to anticipate need results in unacceptable delays
2. the anticipation and plans were there, but there are unavoidable logistic delays no matter what

i certainly hope 1. was not the case

as a future concern, i wonder how something like this can happen to a 21st century city of the US. certainly i hope NO's new levees will be 4 times higher and 10x stronger along with 100x more pumps that are also more reliable. i mean is there any excuse for this to happen again or am i overestimating our technology? of course im assuming no money will be spared toward making sure this doesnt happen again

~Zippy!

First, security is not a major problem, so stop making it an excuse. Second, you obviously have no concept of what goes in to disaster preperation on the scale we are talking about.
 

ZippyDan

Platinum Member
Sep 28, 2001
2,141
1
81
First, security is not a major problem, so stop making it an excuse. Second, you obviously have no concept of what goes in to disaster preperation on the scale we are talking about.

doesnt address my post. what we are seeing now is disaster relief not disaster preparation. why were there not helicopters in the sky with sandbags to plug levee breaches as soon as the storm passed? my lack of knowledge of what went into disaster preparation in this disaster is exactly what i want to alleviate

even the mayor of NO at one point was exasperated with the lack of response to the levee breaches ("too many cooks in the kitchen" was his quote i believe). certainly the mayor himself couldve been uninformed too. but the last news i read said that helicopters were going to be used to plug the breaches and then were diverted to sar operations. and this was several days after the hurricane had already passed. i also read articles about them acquiring or preparing the sandbags for deployment, again several days later

this makes me assume certain things:

1. the helicopters needed to plug the breach had to be acquired after the breaches had occured
2. the sandbags needed to plug the breach had to be acquired after the breaches had occured
3. even after everything was ready, a lack of effective planning delayed the process even more

in my mind this seems to be an example of poor planning. the helicopters and sandbags necessary to plug any potential breach in the levees shouldve been a contingency plan for NO years ago, with firm plans setup days before the hurricane landed. those helicopters should have been fueled and provisioned and ready to plug any breaches before the storm hit. those helicopters shouldve been in the air hours after the breach, not days. even assuming it took days, those helicopters shouldve had a clear objective that could not be derailed conflicting objectives

perhaps the picture ive been getting from news sources is the distorted one, and these delays were unavoidable, thats kind of why i posted here for clarification

as for security, im not sure exactly what effect its having, i know its not possible to perfectly secure anything, but in another post someone said that evacuation is slowed because of fear of mass hysteria as buses arrive. at CNN there are two videos one entitled "Watch report on violence delaying evacuation" and "Fema scaling back evactuation," i havent watched either yet but they are suggestive. on a stickied thread above i see "9/1: FEMA SUSPENDS RESCUE OPERATIONS!! Situation too dangerous." i read reports from the NO Convention Center (from a Spainish MP) about how the National Guard walks by but no one is actually in the Center to direct people and control crowds when the busses come to evacuate people. CNNs front page right now speaks of thousands of refugees confronting a thin line of troops. is it simply sensationalist adjectives? certainly there shouldve been enough personnel to control the busiest evacuation points.

~Zippy!