Hurricane relief

Luke Scharf wrote in message ...
Gary Drescher wrote:
[snip]

It's hard to avoid hearing the Bushisms, though. The Bushism about
shooting-looters-to-kill combined with stories about people being shot
makes it seem like someone at the top ain't though things through.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Police_s...Orleans_bridge
%2C_five_dead
- Police shoot eight gunmen on New Orleans bridge, five dead. Bearing
arms isn't illegal in this country -- what really happened? What about
the due-process rights of those "gunmen"?

You mean the gunmen who were shooting at the folks trying to fix the levee?
My brother might be down there helping out (not as a contractor), and if
he's there with someone shooting at him, I hope the police shoot the
shooters first.

http://cryptome.org/kat05/pict58.jpg -- Leonard Thomas, 23, cries after
a SWAT team burst into the flooded home he and his family were living in
on Monday, Sept. 5, 2005. Neighbors had reported that they were
squatting in the house in the wake of Hurricane Katrina but the
authorities left after his family proved they owned the house. Some
rescuers are not taking any more food and water to those who have
decided to stay in an effort to force them out. (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer)

Scary... Let's just hope that when I walk down a street in Virginia
that my belt-clip cell-phone holder doesn't look like a gun-holster,

Let's just hope you don't take your cell-phone out of the holster and aim it
at someone. Do you honestly think authorities are just going around killing
anyone who has something that might possibly look like a gun?

that I'm not mistaken for a looter,

C'mon...do you actually think that they're going around automatically
shooting at anyone who looks like they might be looting?

that I'm not mistaken a squatter, or
(as happened to a friend recently when he was staying as his brother's
house) that I'm not on the receiving end of false-alarm for a "robbery
in progress". Let's furthermore hope that no TFR's pop up while I'm in
the air, so that I don't get mistaken for a terrorist.

I kinda thought pre-flight briefings would take care of that. Do they
actually put up TFRs with no warnings?

Maybe the solution would be to completely eliminate all law enforcement of
any kind, which would take care of the problems you're concerned about.

- Rick

"J Smith" wrote in message
...
Gary,
How do you justify those adamantly remaining in NO?
Many are not poor, they are home owners.

I haven't asserted that well-to-do homeowners are justified to remain in
N.O.

One report this morning told of buses being driven into the poor
neighborhoods Friday and Saturday and the residents refusing to leave.
Reportedly, they signed waivers to that effect.
Your arguement of the lack of transportation is fading away.

That particular argument still applies to anyone who wanted to leave but
couldn't. It doesn't apply to someone who is offered transportation and
refuge but declines.

--Gary

"Rick" wrote in message
...
Luke Scharf wrote in message ...

- Police shoot eight gunmen on New Orleans bridge, five dead. Bearing
arms isn't illegal in this country -- what really happened? What about
the due-process rights of those "gunmen"?

You mean the gunmen who were shooting at the folks trying to fix the
levee?
My brother might be down there helping out (not as a contractor), and if
he's there with someone shooting at him, I hope the police shoot the
shooters first.



That story took on wings of its own.

A cop spokesman, in a press conference shown on CNN yesterday, while talking
about other subjects, specifically made a point of trying to correct the
versions of this particular story.

His version says 5 guys carrying guns were spotted on the bridge. Police
approached them, and the guys opened fire on the cops at point blank range.
Cops returned fire and 2 of the perps were known to be dead, others were
hit. He stressed that NEVER were any contractors involved. The cops did not
shoot at contractors; the perps did not shoot at contractors.

Today there are a few stories around discussing the many versions of this
event, but the cop-spokesman's version does not yet seem to have made it to
print.

This points out strongly that media no longer collect and report facts.
They report other people's rumours.

Icebound wrote in message ...

"Rick" wrote in message
...
Luke Scharf wrote in message ...

- Police shoot eight gunmen on New Orleans bridge, five dead. Bearing
arms isn't illegal in this country -- what really happened? What about
the due-process rights of those "gunmen"?

You mean the gunmen who were shooting at the folks trying to fix the
levee?
My brother might be down there helping out (not as a contractor), and if
he's there with someone shooting at him, I hope the police shoot the
shooters first.



That story took on wings of its own.

There's likely to be a lot of that in a situation like that.

A cop spokesman, in a press conference shown on CNN yesterday, while
talking
about other subjects, specifically made a point of trying to correct the
versions of this particular story.

His version says 5 guys carrying guns were spotted on the bridge. Police
approached them, and the guys opened fire on the cops at point blank range.
Cops returned fire and 2 of the perps were known to be dead, others were
hit. He stressed that NEVER were any contractors involved. The cops did
not
shoot at contractors; the perps did not shoot at contractors.

Today there are a few stories around discussing the many versions of this
event, but the cop-spokesman's version does not yet seem to have made it to
print.

This points out strongly that media no longer collect and report facts.
They report other people's rumours.

The stories I saw claimed to be sourced from both Corps and Police. In this
kind of situation it must be extremely hard to get direct access to the
people involved. It will be interesting to see what the final version is.

- Rick

Gary Drescher wrote in message ...
"J Smith" wrote in message
...
Gary,
How do you justify those adamantly remaining in NO?
Many are not poor, they are home owners.

I haven't asserted that well-to-do homeowners are justified to remain in
N.O.

One report this morning told of buses being driven into the poor
neighborhoods Friday and Saturday and the residents refusing to leave.
Reportedly, they signed waivers to that effect.
Your arguement of the lack of transportation is fading away.

That particular argument still applies to anyone who wanted to leave but
couldn't. It doesn't apply to someone who is offered transportation and
refuge but declines.

Here's one approach to dealing with that problem:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/06/op...06tierney.html
"Instead of relying on a "Good Samaritan" policy - the fantasy in New
Orleans that everyone would take care of the neighbors - the Virginia rescue
workers go door to door. If people resist the plea to leave, Mr. Judkins
told The Daily Press in Newport News, rescue workers give them Magic Markers
and ask them to write their Social Security numbers on their body parts so
they can be identified."

I think they should give folks bar-coded wrist-bands from the County
Coroner, photograph them for identification by relatives, and give them a
body bag and tell them to crawl inside and zip it up when the water rises.
And maybe someone could invent a portable dental x-ray unit.

- Rick

"Gary Drescher" wrote in
"Happy Dog" wrote in message
...
You seem to have at least as much of a bias in favour of welfare as
anyone here has against it.

And this supposed bias of mine is demonstrated by my asking for evidence
to support the connection between welfare and N.O. violence that you and
others have asserted?

No. By your insistent use of misrepresentation to make your point.

moo

Rick wrote:
You mean the gunmen who were shooting at the folks trying to fix the levee?
My brother might be down there helping out (not as a contractor), and if
he's there with someone shooting at him, I hope the police shoot the
shooters first.

Shooting back in self-defense is one thing.

Following the request from the Louisiana Governor[0][1] and "shooting to
kill" is another. What the hell happened to due process? Without due
process, there is no "rule of law".

Maybe the solution would be to completely eliminate all law enforcement of
any kind, which would take care of the problems you're concerned about.

No, the constitution must followed. Looters should be arrested as per
established procedure, read their rights, and tried for the crime that
they are alleged to have committed.

The rule of law cannot exist if the government gives up on due process
and starts "shooting to kill"[0]. The National Guard doesn't have any
authority to go around the constitution -- especially since every member
is sworn to defend the constitution. If the government doesn't hold up
it's end of the constitutional bargain, then this country stands for
nothing.

-Luke


[0]
http://today.reuters.com/investing/f...TRINA-KILL.XML
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/weather_k...kxBHNlYwN0bQ--
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Govern...r_ho_0901.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...9/s1451906.htm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...763266,00.html
http://news.indiainfo.com/2005/09/02...-violence.html


[1] Sorry I mis-attributed the quote. Sounds like a Bushism, but Google
says that it isn't.

Luke Scharf wrote in message ...
Rick wrote:
You mean the gunmen who were shooting at the folks trying to fix the
levee?
My brother might be down there helping out (not as a contractor), and if
he's there with someone shooting at him, I hope the police shoot the
shooters first.

Shooting back in self-defense is one thing.

That's what happened in this case.

Following the request from the Louisiana Governor[0][1] and "shooting to
kill" is another. What the hell happened to due process? Without due
process, there is no "rule of law".

Maybe the solution would be to completely eliminate all law enforcement
of
any kind, which would take care of the problems you're concerned about.

No, the constitution must followed. Looters should be arrested as per
established procedure, read their rights, and tried for the crime that
they are alleged to have committed.

Please document for me that that is not being done.

The rule of law cannot exist if the government gives up on due process
and starts "shooting to kill"[0].

I think that phrase does not mean what you think it means.

The National Guard doesn't have any
authority to go around the constitution

Please document for me that that is being done.

-- especially since every member
is sworn to defend the constitution. If the government doesn't hold up
it's end of the constitutional bargain, then this country stands for
nothing.

-Luke


[0]
http://today.reuters.com/investing/f...ondsNews&story
ID=2005-09-02T030459Z_01_N01575002_RTRIDST_0_WEATHER-KATRINA-KILL.XML
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/weather_k....ZdVotXZctMgMu
86XKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Govern..._shoot_kill_hu
rricane_survivor_ho_0901.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...9/s1451906.htm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...763266,00.html
http://news.indiainfo.com/2005/09/02...-violence.html


[1] Sorry I mis-attributed the quote. Sounds like a Bushism, but Google
says that it isn't.

No, it doesn't sound like a Bushism, it sounds like a soundbite fragment
that is resounding throughout the echo chamber, unimpeded by context and
background. Do you honestly think that the Guard troops have had no training
in the legalities of the rules of engagement? Do you honestly think that
those rules and the orders issued were designed with no regard for the law
and the constitution? Do you honestly think...actually that's the problem. I
don't believe that you are thinking this through, honestly or not. Maybe you
could do some research on the full statements by the Governor, the orders
issued, and the training that the Guard receives.

I'm glad you're not in charge.

- Rick

Rick wrote in message ...
Icebound wrote in message ...

"Rick" wrote in message
...
Luke Scharf wrote in message ...

- Police shoot eight gunmen on New Orleans bridge, five dead. Bearing
arms isn't illegal in this country -- what really happened? What about
the due-process rights of those "gunmen"?

You mean the gunmen who were shooting at the folks trying to fix the
levee?
My brother might be down there helping out (not as a contractor), and if
he's there with someone shooting at him, I hope the police shoot the
shooters first.



That story took on wings of its own.

There's likely to be a lot of that in a situation like that.

A cop spokesman, in a press conference shown on CNN yesterday, while
talking
about other subjects, specifically made a point of trying to correct the
versions of this particular story.

His version says 5 guys carrying guns were spotted on the bridge. Police
approached them, and the guys opened fire on the cops at point blank
range.
Cops returned fire and 2 of the perps were known to be dead, others were
hit. He stressed that NEVER were any contractors involved. The cops did
not
shoot at contractors; the perps did not shoot at contractors.

Today there are a few stories around discussing the many versions of this
event, but the cop-spokesman's version does not yet seem to have made it
to
print.

This points out strongly that media no longer collect and report facts.
They report other people's rumours.

The stories I saw claimed to be sourced from both Corps and Police. In this
kind of situation it must be extremely hard to get direct access to the
people involved. It will be interesting to see what the final version is.

Some more commentary along those lines:
http://www.reason.com/links/links090605.shtml

- Rick

Rick wrote:

No, it doesn't sound like a Bushism, it sounds like a soundbite fragment
that is resounding throughout the echo chamber, unimpeded by context and
background.

It sounds an awful lot like things Bush says from time-to-time --
especially since just shooting lots of people seems to be strategy that
we need to "stay the course" with in Iraq.

Do you honestly think that the Guard troops have had no training
in the legalities of the rules of engagement? Do you honestly think that
those rules and the orders issued were designed with no regard for the law
and the constitution? Do you honestly think...actually that's the problem. I
don't believe that you are thinking this through, honestly or not. Maybe you
could do some research on the full statements by the Governor, the orders
issued, and the training that the Guard receives.

Look, after reading the USA-PATRIOT act and seeing the reports of the
bizarre things that our government has done after 9/11 (Guitanamo Bay,
Abu-Garabe, TSA systematically ignoring my personal 4th amendment rights
on multiple occasions, bizarre popup TFR's enforced by a lot of
anti-aircraft weaponry, the occasional swarm of police officers pulling
guns on my friend and shooting my friend's brother's dog in Hollywood
Florida for no good reason, and, just for the hell of it, some of new
IT-related rules that have come down the pipe lately), I can no longer
trust the government as-a-whole to respect it's citizens. Politicians
giving orders to ignore one more bit of the Bill of Rights is very
believable, and very frightening.

The individual military and police folks that I talk to seem OK, but
with the changes in search & seizure law that I've been observing, their
character is the only thing that keeps them from being dangerous. With
the constitution being ignored a little more each day, idiotic
leadership at the top, "shoot to kill" stupidity in the middle, and a
few normal folks who have to follow orders at the bottom -- what's left
of the restraint and freedom that made this country great?

All I can do is bitch on the Internet and hope to jolt a few other
people out of their complacency so that they will vote more responsibly
the next time around.

-Luke