1
   

Who forgot to say the magic word?

 
 
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 08:41 am
I've been hearing from a lot of people that the governor of Louisiana did not ask for the right kind of help to appropriately respond to hurricane Katrina. This, of course, leads to me poking around to find out how these things are supposed to work. I ended up at the US Dept. of Homeland Security website reading the National Resonse Plan that was recently developed to enable a coordinated response to disasters.

You can read it too, here. It's in pdf format, fyi.

What's it for?
Quote:
The NRP covers the full range of complex and
constantly changing requirements in anticipation of
or in response to threats or acts of terrorism, major
disasters, and other emergencies. The NRP also
provides the basis to initiate long-term community
recovery and mitigation activities.
The NRP establishes interagency and multijurisdictional
mechanisms for Federal Government involvement in,
and DHS coordination of, domestic incident
management operations.
This includes coordinating structures and processes for
incidents requiring:
■ Federal support to State, local, and tribal governments;
■ Federal-to-Federal support;
■ The exercise of direct Federal authorities and
responsibilities, as appropriate under the law; and
■ Public and private-sector domestic incident
management integration.
This plan distinguishes between incidents that require
DHS coordination, termed Incidents of National
Significance, and the majority of incidents occurring
each year that are handled by responsible jurisdictions
or agencies through other established authorities and
existing plans.

In addition, the NRP:
■ Recognizes and incorporates the various
jurisdictional and functional authorities of Federal
departments and agencies; State, local, and tribal
governments; and private-sector organizations in
domestic incident management.
■ Details the specific domestic incident management
roles and responsibilities of the Secretary of
Homeland Security, Attorney General, Secretary of
Defense, Secretary of State, and other departments
and agencies involved in domestic incident
management as defined in HSPD-5 and other relevant
statutes and directives.
■ Establishes the multiagency organizational structures
and processes required to implement the authorities,
roles, and responsibilities of the Secretary of
Homeland Security as the "principal Federal official"
for domestic incident management.


FEMA is under Homeland Security, so let's assume that working with FEMA requires DHS coordination.


When should this plan be applied?:
Quote:
This plan is applicable to all Federal departments and
agencies that may be requested to provide assistance or
conduct operations in the context of actual or potential
Incidents of National Significance.


What's an Incident of National Significance?
Quote:
Based on the criteria established in HSPD-5, Incidents
of National Significance are those high-impact events
that require a coordinated and effective response by an
appropriate combination of Federal, State, local, tribal,
private-sector, and nongovernmental entities in order
to save lives, minimize damage, and provide the basis
for long-term community recovery and mitigation
activities.


How do we decide if something is an Incident of National Significance?
Quote:
The NRP bases the definition of Incidents of National Significance on situations related to the following four
criteria set forth in HSPD-5:
1. A Federal department or agency acting under its own authority has requested the assistance of the Secretary of
Homeland Security.

2. The resources of State and local authorities are overwhelmed and Federal assistance has been requested by the
appropriate State and local authorities. Examples include:
■ Major disasters or emergencies as defined under the Stafford Act; and

■ Catastrophic incidents (see definition on page 43).

3. More than one Federal department or agency has become substantially involved in responding to an incident.
Examples include:
■ Credible threats, indications or warnings of imminent terrorist attack, or acts of terrorism directed
domestically against the people, property, environment, or political or legal institutions of the United States
or its territories or possessions; and
■ Threats or incidents related to high-profile, large-scale events that present high-probability targets such as
National Special Security Events (NSSEs) and other special events as determined by the Secretary of
Homeland Security, in coordination with other Federal departments and agencies.

4. The Secretary of Homeland Security has been directed to assume responsibility for managing a domestic
incident by the President.


Who has to say the magic word?
Quote:
Pursuant to HSPD-5, as the principal Federal official for
domestic incident management, the Secretary of
Homeland Security declares Incidents of National
Significance
(in consultation with other departments and
agencies as appropriate) and provides coordination for
Federal operations and/or resources, establishes
reporting requirements, and conducts ongoing
communications with Federal, State, local, tribal, privatesector,
and nongovernmental organizations to maintain
situational awareness, analyze threats, assess national
implications of threat and operational response activities,
and coordinate threat or incident response activities.


When did he say the magic word?
Quote:
The Homeland Security Department said Wednesday it had declared Hurricane Katrina an "incident of national significance," triggering for the first time a coordinated federal response to states and localities overwhelmed by disaster.
source

Could he have done it earlier? When the governor of Louisiana asked for an emergency declaration she said:
Quote:
Pursuant to 44 CFR ยง 206.35, I have determined that this incident is of
such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the
capabilities of the State and affected local governments,
and that
supplementary Federal assistance is necessary to save lives, protect
property, public health, and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a
disaster.
source
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,736 • Replies: 50
No top replies

 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 08:50 am
It will be interesting (not) to see how these cold facts will be spinned by the "usual suspects."
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 08:57 am
I know someone is going to call me a Bush-hater or a Bush-blamer, but it's really not true. I withheld judgment for at least a week because I thought there was too much chaos and rumor to form an opinion. I still don't think it was completely the feds fault. Some have made the point the the LA governor refused to cede authority to the pres to control the National Guard. That's a valid point. But both LA and Missip reported poor federal response, and I think this answers the question of why.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 09:01 am
I'm also still just trying to figure things out, this helps immensely, thanks!
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 09:22 am
FreeDuck wrote:
Some have made the point the the LA governor refused to cede authority to the pres to control the National Guard. That's a valid point.


Just saw this, it's interesting:

Quote:
Political Issues Snarled Plans for Military Help After Hurricane

By ERIC LIPTON, ERIC SCHMITT
and THOM SHANKER
Published: September 9, 2005
WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 - As New Orleans descended into chaos last week and Louisiana's governor asked for 40,000 soldiers, President Bush's senior advisers debated whether the president should speed the arrival of active-duty troops by seizing control of the hurricane relief mission from the governor.

For reasons of practicality and politics, officials at the Justice Department and the Pentagon, and then at the White House, decided not to urge Mr. Bush to take command of the effort. Instead, the Washington officials decided to rely on the growing number of National Guard personnel flowing into Louisiana, who were under Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco's control.

The debate began after officials realized that Hurricane Katrina had exposed a critical flaw in the national disaster response plans created after the Sept. 11 attacks. According to the administration's senior domestic security officials, the plan failed to recognize that local police, fire and medical personnel might be incapacitated.

As criticism of the response to Hurricane Katrina has mounted, one of the most pointed questions has been why more troops were not available more quickly to restore order and offer aid. Interviews with officials in Washington and Louisiana show that as the situation grew worse, they were wrangling with questions of federal/state authority, weighing the realities of military logistics and perhaps talking past each other in the crisis.

To seize control of the mission, Mr. Bush would have had to invoke the Insurrection Act, which allows the president in times of unrest to command active-duty forces into the states to perform law enforcement duties. But decision makers in Washington felt certain that Ms. Blanco would have resisted surrendering control, as Bush administration officials believe would have been required to deploy active-duty combat forces before law and order had been re-established.

-snip-

But just as important to the administration were worries about the message that would have been sent by a president ousting a Southern governor of another party from command of her National Guard, according to administration, Pentagon and Justice Department officials.

"Can you imagine how it would have been perceived if a president of the United States of one party had pre-emptively taken from the female governor of another party the command and control of her forces, unless the security situation made it completely clear that she was unable to effectively execute her command authority and that lawlessness was the inevitable result?" asked one senior administration official, who spoke anonymously because the talks were confidential.

Officials in Louisiana agree that the governor would not have given up control over National Guard troops in her state as would have been required to send large numbers of active-duty soldiers into the area. But they also say they were desperate and would have welcomed assistance by active-duty soldiers.

"I need everything you have got," Ms. Blanco said she told Mr. Bush last Monday, after the storm hit.

-snip-

But one senior Army officer expressed puzzlement that active-duty troops were not summoned sooner, saying 82nd Airborne troops were ready to move out from Fort Bragg, N.C., on Sunday, the day before the hurricane hit.

The call never came, administration officials said, in part because military officials believed Guard troops would get to the stricken region faster and because administration civilians worried that there could be political fallout if federal troops were forced to shoot looters.


http://nytimes.com/2005/09/09/national/nationalspecial/09military.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=905e7a862e1c0023&hp&ex=1126324800&partner=homepage

This makes it sound like it wasn't that Blanco actually refused, but that Washington officials made the decision not to go for that because a) they assumed she would refuse and b) they didn't want to look bad by wresting control from her.

Meanwhile, the issue of the entire city being incapacitated, as you have said, ("If the entire city of Miami washed away, you'd have a point") is very much the center of this one.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 09:23 am
Thanks for the leg work Free!
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 09:29 am
Good find, soz. I'm not clear on why the president would need to control the guard troops in order to deploy active-duty troops, but I'm sure someone who understands the law will be along shortly.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 09:30 am
littlek wrote:
Thanks for the leg work Free!


Anytime. My curiosity got the better of me so I thought I'd share.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 09:31 am
I'm still puzzling that out, too. The Insurrection Act seems to be an important piece.

I encourage you to read the whole NYT article above, I just snipped bits and pieces. I think if I read it 2-3 more times I might start to get it. :-)
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 09:44 am
Ah, I see.

Quote:
While combat troops can conduct relief missions without the legal authority of the Insurrection Act, Pentagon and military officials say that no active-duty forces could have been sent into the chaos of New Orleans on Wednesday or Thursday without confronting law-and-order challenges.


So it was the expectation that they would, out of necessity, be forced to act as law enforcement, thus violating the law. Still, there were people conducting search and rescue missions that presumably weren't required to stop looting, so why couldn't soldiers do that too?
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 10:22 am
The one time the law might get in the way... Seems a little too much like a convenient excuse.

I'll chime in with another "Thank YOU!, Freeduck!" I had been trying to answer this question, too.

From a comparison of the two statements of emergency prior to Katrina, in which Mississippi and Louisiana asked for federal assistance, I couldn't find a difference as far as what was being asked of the Feds. So my other question: Did Mississippi Republican governor cede control of his national guard units, thereby allowing FEMA to move?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 10:51 am
From what I've read and heard, Mississippi folks are also saying that they got no help, it's just that they've been drowned out by the devastation next door. I think this is just good old fashioned incompetence.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 10:54 am
Here's an example: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/06/48hours/main821587.shtml
Quote:
People here know things are worse in New Orleans, and in Biloxi, patience isn't just a virtue -- it's a way of life. But three days after Katrina hit, you could hear in the voice of Major Wildish, of the local Salvation Army, that supplies and patience were wearing thin.

"We have a great need for food. We have a lot of people and yet we don't have enough food to feed them," he said.

By Sunday, patience was gone.

"I've been so angry because we've been forgotten over here," says Ganese Darden. "There's nothing, there's nothing in East Biloxi."
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 11:18 am
FD, kudos for unearthing all this data. http://messenger.msn.com/MMM2005-08-22_16.23/Resource/emoticons/thumbs_up.gif
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 11:26 am
I'm another one who has been slow to pile on blame, still looking at scenarios.

I've gotten an email the morning with a noncatchy title about lies.. but interesting analysis. Will either cut and paste it or link it, back in a minute.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 11:31 am
Eight Big Lies about Katrina, link to article
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 12:02 pm
Wow. Good link osso.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 12:06 pm
BBB
In a Bureaucracy, how many anal-retentive nit pickers does it take to dance on the head of a pin while people die?

BBB
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 12:12 pm
I'm not without anger about all this. I am apt to, in the end, place some of my anger at the electorates at all levels. I am still trying to understand some of the mechanics underlying the wretched situation.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 12:14 pm
Me too. But the more I look, the more it looks like incompetence coupled with new buraucratic red tape brought about by the decision to put FEMA under Homeland Security, and put political figureheads in positions that required technocrats.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Who forgot to say the magic word?
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 02/07/2025 at 02:45:43