• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New type of commander may avoid Katrina-like chaos

repeter

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
3,445
Reaction score
682
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
New type of commander may avoid Katrina-like chaos

The Defense Department is grooming a new type of commander to coordinate the military response to domestic disasters, hoping to save lives by avoiding some of the chaos that plagued the Hurricane Katrina rescue effort.

The officers, called dual-status commanders, would be able to lead both active-duty and National Guard troops — a power that requires special training and authority because of legal restrictions on the use of the armed forces on U.S. soil.

I think this is a pretty cool idea, and part of me wonders why we didn't have this before.

The most telling part, IMO, is the comparison to the '04 G8 Summit in Georgia.
 
Last edited:
New type of commander may avoid Katrina-like chaos



I think this is a pretty cool idea, and part of me wonders why we didn't have this before.

The most telling part, IMO, is the comparison to the '04 G8 Summit in Georgia.

It absolutely has to be the National Guard/State authority that is in command if any law enforcement duties are assigned. Putting the President in charge of military forces policing the civilian population would be unconstitutional and a disaster just waiting to happen.
 
It absolutely has to be the National Guard/State authority that is in command if any law enforcement duties are assigned. Putting the President in charge of military forces policing the civilian population would be unconstitutional and a disaster just waiting to happen.

I would agree the constitutional reasoning behind that. The disaster part is alarmist, and sensationalist, at best.
 
Then take it to the courts.

I'm not going to have to. This is clearly an attempt to sidestep the Posse Comatadus Act and will no doubt be challenged.

This is what we can expect from the current administration.
 
I don't like it much. Sounds good, on the surface, but they could declare civil unrest as a disaster, send out the troops. Sounds like something wrapped in pretty bows to me, that could actually infringe on our rights at some point. We don't NEED more gov't. We have all we need, and WAY more than we need. It needs to used properly. I do not support having the Obama Justice Dept. in charge of anything else. Living in AZ I have little respect for them.
 
Back
Top Bottom