FEMA during a terrorist attack..

In the recent insight of Hurricane Katrina hitting the Gulf, one really has to wonder just what would be done during a large scale terrorist attack. If an entire rescue operation is called off because 1 bullet hits a helicopter during rescues, what would happen if say.. a bio/chemical weapon is deployed in a city? Or even worse a nuclear weapon/dirty bomb?

I was awestruck when the entire rescue operation was called off at the superdome because a bullet was fired. Granted, yeah, people are pissed, thugs are on the loose, and people are fed up.. but the excuses fed to us is "the safety of the rescuers are at jeoperdy"..

I have a bad feeling that if a horrible large scale terrorist attack is perpertrated on America's soils.. the government will stand idle and watch us die because the situation may "affect the safety of rescuers"..

At what point do you draw the line in the sand and determine if the risk is worth the lives of the hundreds you save?

Originally posted by QuietSoul

In the recent insight of Hurricane Katrina hitting the Gulf, one really has to wonder just what would be done during a large scale terrorist attack. If an entire rescue operation is called off because 1 bullet hits a helicopter during rescues, what would happen if say.. a bio/chemical weapon is deployed in a city? Or even worse a nuclear weapon/dirty bomb?

It's interesting to note how well organised everyone was on 9/11, especially FEMA who were there a day earlier.

Makes you wonder if events like 9/11 weren't pre-planned to a degree before hand. When nature takes a hit, the government has no idea what to do, but a terrorist attack, they know every step that needs to be taken as if they somehow knew and were prepared in advance.

I find it strange that both scenarios share very few similiarties of the aftermath in organisation, response etc etc. Why 9/11 was so responsive yet this event is so unorganised?

I'm still expecting something else to happen, this bad organisation is an excuse to bring in Martial Law, or atleast test the martial law waters. All we need is another US city being hit hard and/or a code red threat level and Martial Law will be the best option. Would give a good excuse for bringing troops home from Iraq, now wouldn't that be ironic!

Amazing how FEMA can organize the removal of ALL forensic evidence in the WTC collapse and the Pentagon before anyone has a chance to analize the rubble for explosive residues, but they can't manage to rescue thousands of KNOWN survivors in the New Orleans Convention Center or the difficult to find Superdome.

Hmmm, one was under the impression that agencies such as FEMA were set up specifically to deal with sucvh scenarios as we have recently witnessed, yet when it came to the crunch, they seemed grossly ineffective. Why is that?
Conspiracy theorists will question the true nature of FEMA itself, whereas I suspect one of the primary reasons for the seemingly shambolic handling of the hurricane's aftermath is simply complacency, across the board.

Thats my two groats worth anyways!

In 9/11, FEMA and the government and the military had all their resources to hand. In Katrina, the military was in Iraq, leaving less-experienced National Guard. So they had that problem, countered with the fact that there was confusion on who was commanding the situation. I frankly dont blame FEMA for their New Orleans screwup.

In an ideal terrorist attack, the government would have the resources to hand. Martial law is only as effective as the soldier's who implement it, and those good soldiers will be home by the time the new world order strikes again.

What if we had a UFO landing, crash, etc? If the Grey's make themselves known,
will they be walking around downtown while the Governor and the President figure out who to blame?

There have been numerous [top-level] officials who are already calling for a Congressional investigation into why FEMA failed, who was responsible, and why . . .

Obviously heads are going to roll within the FEMA heirarchy.

What heirarchy is that . . . Michael Brown, a former head (kicked-out/forceful resignation) of an Arabian horse association (which is/was a significant supporter of the Bush/Republican party)? . . . Chertoff?

IMHO both sock puppets.

Double-edged approach equals double-edged results.

First off, after the obvious failure during the aftermath of Katrina, you can now rally Congress into providing more funding for FEMA (virtually the most powerful agency within the US government which is not even reportable to Congress and seems to have one of the largest non-accountable [black]budgets in the government/country) and at the same time lop the heads of the current heirarchy and replace with ??.

At the same time, while rallying the support of Congress (the people per se) you can give FEMA more [responsive] powers.

Consider the Executive orders (giving ungodly powers) drawn up during the Clinton admin, but were never actually signed into order . . . gotta pen?!

Two seats now open on the Supreme Court (may Rehnquist rest in peace].

I'm just trying to look at the overall end-result possibilites of this current situation, which in my opinion could end up to be more far reaching than most Americans can even fathom.

Any/All comments/suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Those familiar with FEMA's current [actual] abilites and what's in their unsigned repertoire' [presidential orders] may have a clearer picture of these possibilities.

YES, FEMA is to be the federal government's Response Team in time of crisis, but they are actually tasked with sooooo much more [in the BIG picture].

What better time to increase Congressional [public] support, funding, and a new [appointed] head at the helm?!

Just my thoughts . . .

Well where is the investigation on why it took so long for a retaliation after 9/11. As if al Qaeda was going to sit and wait for us to attack.