It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Blanco, Bush, and the Insurrection Act: Why the Fed Wasn't in Command in NO

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 01:51 AM
link   
The ultimate irony of the NO disaster is that the very same people who think that Bush is an evil dictator -- and who are blaming him for the NO disaster -- don't realize that he wasn't in command of the troops in New Orleans because of a law that was designed to protect america's domestic system of federalism, civilian rights, and state-fed blanace of power.

Basically... In the US laws exist that prevent Federal military forces from engaging in combat with american civilians... unless a state of insurrection is declared. Bush... whom everyone has bashed for not storming into NO... was legally restricted from doing so with Federal combat troops.

Now... he could have taken over the command in NO from Blanco -- who was not going to give up her command... but, if he had done so, he would now be getting attacked as a dictator by the same critics who are complaining that he didn't take over.

All in all, one can argue that Bush prevented a John Titor style dictatorship from developing because he did not push Blanco to the side.

from the NYTIMES:
"Aides to Ms. Blanco said she was prepared to accept the deployment of active-duty military officials in her state. But she and other state officials balked at giving up control of the Guard as Justice Department officials said would have been required by the Insurrection Act if those combat troops were to be sent in before order was restored.
"In a separate discussion last weekend, the governor also rejected a more modest proposal for a hybrid command structure in which both the Guard and active-duty troops would be under the command of an active-duty, three-star general - but only after he had been sworn into the Louisiana National Guard."

www.nytimes.com... rss&adxnnlx=1126238795-dGCl9WlaN8lbkCHBy9hw2w&pagewanted=print




posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 03:59 AM
link   
That's a very good and informative post.

But with one simple question, alow me to defeat your point;

Who gave her the job?



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 08:01 AM
link   
She got the job by fixing the election. She was the hand picked candidate of the Landreu family who have ran LA politics for years!LA has long been a seat of Democratic corruption and vote fixing!



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Huey Long , Edwin Edwards ring a bell?


Corrupt BIG TIME always has been.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 08:25 AM
link   
federal combat troops?



is that name interchangeable with national guards or rescue workers?
and if my memory serves me right, she didn't want to give command of any guards to the president because she didn't trust what he'll direct them to do. but this was prior to the Calvary coming (4-5 days after the storm and floods).

is it illegal for the president to call in some rescue troops to be stationed outside of the charted disaster area after the gov. has issued a state of emergency?



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Huey Long , Edwin Edwards ring a bell?


Corrupt BIG TIME always has been.


ahh that word corruption. that and sodomy seems to be in the newspapers often when a bush is in the office



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join