Worthy News: President Bush Declares State Of Emergency For New York,

[George]

President George Bush has declared a state of emergency in New York and Washington State following severe storms and flooding.

http://www.worthynews.com/news/allheadline...les-7005837549/

[Marnie]

Interesting... I live in New York State and not too far from some of these counties and have not heard a word about this flooding. In fact, I am only a hop skit and a jump from Broome County. Guess I will have to go back to turning on the tele to see what's going on in my area.

My Web Blog

Spending too much time here at Worthy?

[buckthesystem]

Hmmn "State of emergency". From what I found out about this recently this enables the government/the president to have virtually "unlimited power" over their own citizens.

If everybody didn't even know about the flooding, or it wasn't bad enough to thought "anything out of the ordinary", this seems like a pretty flimsy excuse for declaring such powers.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that "state of emergency" often equals "suspending" of civil rights (so just in case the PATRIOT act missed something) and often means the "suspension" of Habeas Corpus - this time for American citizens not just "enemy combattants".

I guess maybe we will see firearms confiscated wholesale from people in Washington State and NY, just like happened "as a result of Hurricane Catriona".

Just a thought.

[Marnie]

Buck,

I have raised the popularity of the "state of emergency" declaration several times, and been soundly trounced around here. My beef is that governors and other politicians invoke it just to get federal funds just to make themselves look proactive. During the last hurricane season some governors declared states of emergency in the face of the possibility of a hurricane, in other words, before a state of emergency existed. That is an affront to me and an abuse of power.

[Spunky]

Now I didn't hear anything about the floodin and all but I'm

not in that vicinity.

However Our area was declared a state of emergency in Oct.

when we had a horrible snow storm that hit us in Upstate NY,

and I was very glad they declared it cause there was much

disaster left by the storm it took out nearly 60% of the trees

in one county alone not to mention the hundreds of thousands

that were left without power.

We in Upstate New York are very appreciative of all those that

traveled from far away states to help us remove the debree.

Despite the intense emotions that people were going through

I was so happy to see neighbor after neighbor checking up on

one another most of whom had never spoken before.

I would rather see our public officials act too early than too late!

I also would still hold them accountable if they misrepresent the

funds needed.

God Bless!

[ted]

Hmmn "State of emergency". From what I found out about this recently this enables the government/the president to have virtually "unlimited power" over their own citizens.

If everybody didn't even know about the flooding, or it wasn't bad enough to thought "anything out of the ordinary", this seems like a pretty flimsy excuse for declaring such powers.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that "state of emergency" often equals "suspending" of civil rights (so just in case the PATRIOT act missed something) and often means the "suspension" of Habeas Corpus - this time for American citizens not just "enemy combattants".

I guess maybe we will see firearms confiscated wholesale from people in Washington State and NY, just like happened "as a result of Hurricane Catriona".

Just a thought.

Declaring the area as a Federaly funded state of emergency in these instances allows National Guard guys to go on orders so they can fill sandbags and stuff. It's a way for the Guard people to be funded by the Feds instead of the State. If the Governor calls it, it's paid for by the State. If they get the Feds to declare it, the money comes from the Federal system.

Simple is that.

But, in the instantces of extreme violence, tragic loss of life, etc, it does give local commanders the power to take control if needed. It's all based on a scale and determined on the severity of the incident. If severe flooding is the problem for instance, then the Troops will fill sandbags, provide shelters, pass out food, run generators, provide medivac helicopters, etc.

If the problem is rioting, looting, murder, etc, then other powers can be invoked when local law enforcement cannot handle the severity of the situation.

That's all stuff I can agree with. What I didn't, and still don't agree with is when they go around taking people's guns for no reason. What happened in Katrina went overboard, as far as that goes.

[eric]

Hmmn "State of emergency". From what I found out about this recently this enables the government/the president to have virtually "unlimited power" over their own citizens.

If everybody didn't even know about the flooding, or it wasn't bad enough to thought "anything out of the ordinary", this seems like a pretty flimsy excuse for declaring such powers.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that "state of emergency" often equals "suspending" of civil rights (so just in case the PATRIOT act missed something) and often means the "suspension" of Habeas Corpus - this time for American citizens not just "enemy combattants".

I guess maybe we will see firearms confiscated wholesale from people in Washington State and NY, just like happened "as a result of Hurricane Catriona".

Just a thought.

Buck you are an alarmist and a proper little joy germ. How many times has a state of emergancy been declared in NZ over the past two or three years. the floods have experinced in the middle and lower north island, have been catastrophic and also the droughts and many farmers have committed suicide. Were you affected by the state of emergency and have to give up any of your precious rights.

Give us a break, Buck. Stop worrying about the US and the UK and keep your own behind in your own back yard and stop worrying about big brother........he's here to stay, until the Father decides his fate.

[buckthesystem]

Hmmn "State of emergency". From what I found out about this recently this enables the government/the president to have virtually "unlimited power" over their own citizens.

If everybody didn't even know about the flooding, or it wasn't bad enough to thought "anything out of the ordinary", this seems like a pretty flimsy excuse for declaring such powers.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that "state of emergency" often equals "suspending" of civil rights (so just in case the PATRIOT act missed something) and often means the "suspension" of Habeas Corpus - this time for American citizens not just "enemy combattants".

I guess maybe we will see firearms confiscated wholesale from people in Washington State and NY, just like happened "as a result of Hurricane Catriona".

Just a thought.

Buck you are an alarmist and a proper little joy germ. How many times has a state of emergancy been declared in NZ over the past two or three years. the floods have experinced in the middle and lower north island, have been catastrophic and also the droughts and many farmers have committed suicide. Were you affected by the state of emergency and have to give up any of your precious rights.

Give us a break, Buck. Stop worrying about the US and the UK and keep your own behind in your own back yard and stop worrying about big brother........he's here to stay, until the Father decides his fate.

eric I guess you are referring to the flooding that occurred in mainly the south part of the North Island in late 2003/early 2004 and again in 2005. So what good was a "state of emergency" (I don't actually remember Helen declaring one anyway)? I mean what did the government actually do for farmers, market gardeners and homeowners who lost most of what they had?

The main thing that will always stick in peoples' minds about these floods is the fact that in the middle and lower part of the North Island farmers were rescuing stock stranded in flooded paddocks and trying to shift them to higher ground, then farmers and homeowners had all the belongings they could salvage piled up on trailers and trucks (well tied down of course) and trying to get out of the area. I was up there visiting a friend at the time and her husband was out in the rain tying the load down on his ute only to be greeted by police waiting for him and others in the same situation, when he got out on the road, whereupon they stopped all the vehicles, demanded that the drivers unload everything by the side of the road, and then proceeded to issue them with notices of fines for "overloading" the trucks and trailers. This happened a lot and is not just hearsay, as I saw it with my own eyes.

That is the "helpful" way the government sees emergency situations: "how can we cash in on this disaster?" It cost my friend and her husband about $600 plus the loss of their property that they could save because they would have been "breaking the law and overloading the truck".

So yeah, eric, I'm kinda cynical and alarmist.

[buckthesystem]

Hmmn "State of emergency". From what I found out about this recently this enables the government/the president to have virtually "unlimited power" over their own citizens.

If everybody didn't even know about the flooding, or it wasn't bad enough to thought "anything out of the ordinary", this seems like a pretty flimsy excuse for declaring such powers.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that "state of emergency" often equals "suspending" of civil rights (so just in case the PATRIOT act missed something) and often means the "suspension" of Habeas Corpus - this time for American citizens not just "enemy combattants".

I guess maybe we will see firearms confiscated wholesale from people in Washington State and NY, just like happened "as a result of Hurricane Catriona".

Just a thought.

Teh problem with Katrina was there were idiots shooting at the rescue workers who were just trying to save people's lives.

Yes Whysoblind, I did realise that, I had read about it, sorry for not mentioning it. That does make sense as to why the state might want to take firearms off a selected few.

But it does not explain why they apparently went totally "over the top" and went house to house searching and seizing firearms from everybody - leaving, of course, homeowners who stayed with what was left of their home thoroughly defenceless against looters and "opportunists".

Another thing about the powers of "state of emergency" is the forcible "evacuation" of people. I think the state has got a bit of a cheek forcing people to leave what ever they have that was not destroyed in the hurricane. If they want to stay and defend what is theirs, with their own firearms, then the state has no business interfering. It seems that that was all state workers did during Katrina, they didn't actually help a lot of people.

[nebula]

This is silly!

A state of emergency is always declared whenever natural disasters significantly damage an area. It's never been a big deal. Normally, it does more to help the recovery effort.

The Katrina aftermath was an extreme exception. There were many reasons for this. For one, the mayor of New Orleans and the governor of Lousiana dropped the ball on disaster preparation and delayed in calling for an evacuation. For another, this was the recently formed FEMA's first major disaster to oversee, and obviously they were in a state of dissaray.

As for forcing people to leave, it was to keep them from dying. Until the water receded, they were surrounded by water filled with toxins, the sewage system wasn't working so unless they had stocked up on fresh water (which they hadn't) they had no water to drink, and without electricity they had a food shortage. Even after the water receded, they still had no access to food and water. I don't blame the people for not wanting to leave, but many of those who stayed in their homes perished for it.