Evacuation Law

[Paul Stofer]

A new law has been passed in Texas that starts September 1. It allows law enforcement to arrest anyone who refuses to leave during a mandatory evacuation. Any thoughts?

[Brandon Goforth]

Not surprised with a growing government that wants to control everything... :mad:

[Mikey Gribble]

Yeah, lay low until the hurricane starts to hit and then there aren't any cops to worry about.
I would think a reasonable cop wouldn't mess with you too much if you could show that you were prepared and/or affiliated with the media somehow. I'm sure the motivation and purpose behind this law is to have the authority to get the ignorant and stubborn people out who simply don't understand what's about to happen. It's not targetted at storm chasers.

[Angie Norris]

This is interesting, but it raises a few questions. Is there a specific precedent they are basing the law on? Are there provisions in place for evacuating those who cannot leave on their own, ie, the elderly, disabled or homeless? Would public transportation be used to facilitate the evacuation process? Are provisions in place for housing the evacuees on a long term basis that includes child care and pet care? I wonder about the constitutionality of the law as well.
Is there a link to the text of the new law?

[Paul Stofer]

I found this article. Very interesting..

http://www.caller.com/news/2009/jul/26/police-can-use-force-compel-hurricane-evacuation/

I'm looking for the actual act that was passed, when I find it I'll post the new law.

[Mikey Gribble]

I just read that article and they did mention the "storm watcher" that got killed, so maybe some cops would apply the law to storms chasers. I think it's BS and the government should stay out of it, but I won't allow it to affect my plans. Surely they aren't going to arrest media people, so go get a press ID. You can go make one and I know there was a place that would do it for you in the past. I don't know if it would work, but it can't hurt your chances of being allowed to stay. Worst case scenario is you leave and go to the other side of town or down the shore a ways and watch the hurricane from your backup spot. You should get down there a day early IMO to find a couple safe places to ride it out IMO.

[Paul Stofer]

Do you mean showing "fake" press credentials to law enforcement? Not too entirely sure on the legality of that, if that was what you were implying of course (I don't think it was). I'm an employee for a TV station here in Dallas, and we had a guy running around showing "press credentials" to law enforcement.. I believe he got in significant trouble for that. I suppose if your creating freelance photographer credentials, then there probably isn't any harm in that?
(http://www.youfini****.com/youfini****/item322.htm)

[Dan Robinson]

There is no official entity that issues/authorizes press credentials, just the media company for whom the journalist works for. Thanks to 'freedom of the press' in the USA, anyone can call themselves a journalist and be 'legit' - IE, you don't need to be employed by a TV station to invoke your constitutional right to be a journalist. That includes freelancers. Making your own creds isn't against the law, as long as you don't put false logos or info on there (for example, printing the TWC or CNN logo on it when in fact you aren't employed by them). Just put your web site address and logo on there along with your photo, get it laminated and that should be enough.

Hurricanes are one instance where it pays to look like an obvious storm chaser. Lightbars, antennas, instruments, logos, web URLs, the works. You don't want to look like an average Joe. If you're embarrased for people to know you're a chaser, don't worry, there won't be many people to see you. Granted, there have been problems in the past with people 'impersonating' media, but I'd rather look very much like I was someone with a legit reason to be there.

[David Wolfson]

Angie is on the right track, I think. The police have the duty to enforce the law. They don't however have discretion of whether to enforce the law -- only an implied power to interpret the law in light of circumstances, subject to the oversight of the courts. And they don't have the power to determine guilt or innocence.

What this law mainly does IMO is convey a greater duty and a liability to police and public safety to ensure people are evacuated. Previously if someone doesn't evacuate then you can maintain it was in some sense a matter of choice if they suffer the consequences.

Consider Katrina. Thousands of people didn't evacuate because they couldn't evacuate -- for a whole variety of circumstances including handicap, lack of suitable transportation, obligation to others, etc. Hundreds of them perished. Since the law allowed them to stay, public agencies were mostly off the hook, providing evacuation services on a best effort basis.

When a local official issues a "reasonable force" declaration then they take on an obligation to do it, and do it equitably. The inevitable outcome whereby well-situated households are escorted to safety while the poor and infirm remain doesn't play well in law or morality IMHO.

[Marcus Hicks]

Unfortunatly these laws are inacted because people don't exercise common sense anymore. People refuse to leave because they don't believe it will be bad and then blame someone else when there stuck on a roof waiting for a rescue. Then there are those who can't leave on their own. Wonder if the law will consider this as well. For a chaser with credentials you should be ok.

[Warren Faidley]

This is just another unnecessary law related to growing government control and fear of civil actions. The “law” is totally unconstitutional. The fourth amendment clearly states:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

However, the near term concern about this law is as follows:

“A county judge or mayor of a municipality who orders the evacuation of an area stricken or threatened by a disaster.”

So what is “threatened”. Could “threatened” by a disaster be interpreted by a local jurisdiction as a high risk day? Sounds outlandish, but laws are often stretched into odd interpretations.

The language will eventually be challenged in the Texas Supreme Court and maybe the US Supreme Court and will be nixed, likely by someone (e.g., a business interest) who is forced to leave and they suffer some type of substantial loss, e.g., looting. Of course, until then, media personnel and others who have legitimate reasons to be covering hurricanes and similar events ***might*** bear the burden of the law being abused -- beyond the intended purpose, I suppose -- 1: of getting people out of obviously dangerous places. 2: Limiting civil liability. (Which should have been the sole language of the bill). I would not be surprised to see other states follow this action. For chasers, I think this just goes to illustrate that personal freedoms are always at risk when laws like this are passed. My gut feeling is that most areas will not enforce the law to any extreme, and the concern will be with large public areas. We will see!

Here is a copy of the house bill:

HB 1831:

Sec. 418.185. MANDATORY EVACUATION.

(a) This section does not apply to a person who is authorized to be in an evacuated area, including a person who returns to the area under a phased reentry plan or credentialing process under Section 418.050.
(b) A county judge or mayor of a municipality who orders the evacuation of an area stricken or threatened by a disaster by order may compel persons who remain in the evacuated area to leave and authorize the use of reasonable force to remove persons from the area.
(c) The governor and a county judge or mayor of a municipality who orders the evacuation of an area stricken or threatened by a disaster by a concurrent order may compel persons who remain in the evacuated area to leave.
(d) A person is civilly liable to a governmental entity, or a nonprofit agency cooperating with a governmental entity, that conducts a rescue on the person's behalf for the cost of the rescue effort if:
(1) the person knowingly ignored a mandatory
evacuation order under this section and:
(A) engaged in an activity or course of action
that a reasonable person would not have engaged in; or
(B) failed to take a course of action a
reasonable person would have taken;
(2) the person's actions under Subdivision (1) placed
the person or another person in danger; and
(3) a governmental rescue effort was undertaken on the
person's behalf.
(e) An officer or employee of the state or a political subdivision who issues or is working to carry out a mandatory evacuation order under this section is immune from civil liability for any act or omission within the course and scope of the person's authority under the order.

####

[richhorodner]

This is just another unnecessary law related to growing government control and fear of civil actions. The “law” is totally unconstitutional. The fourth amendment clearly states: yatta yatta yatta
####

And professor Gates cannot be arrested in his own home for having a big mouth or complaining loudly.

But in reality concerning the new Texas law:

Not that these actions have not, de facto, been in effect elsewhere for awhile now. Myself, and two other chasers were "arrested" in 1998 in N. Car. and dragged into a makeshift court IN THE EYE of hurricane Bonnie. After Ivan in Pensacola I was sternly warned and so was Jim Leonard, several times," to get the hell off the streets immediately or be taken to jail" by local cops. Terry Nixon was told he had 5 minutes to get out of Cameron County, LA during hurricane Danny in 1985; when the officer was radioded to respond to an emergency. "If you are here when I get back, you are in the pokey."

In NW Florida, Jim was almost thrown in jail by the Blountstown police during Hurricane Kate.

During Georges, in Biloxi, I was told in no uncertain terms to "go back to your hotel room" or be taken to jail by an irate lady cop. I had no hotel room, but drove into the parking area until she left.

But ironically, Texas is the one state we have never been bothered by police during a hurricane chase; even in areas under mandatory evacuation, governor declard states of emergency, or locally imposed curfews. During Ike the bridge to Galveston Island, despite mandatory evacuation, was not roadblocked except by rising water; until after the storm when boats were on the bridge hindering passage of vehicles.

[Joe Dorn]

This is interesting, but it raises a few questions. Is there a specific precedent they are basing the law on? Are there provisions in place for evacuating those who cannot leave on their own, ie, the elderly, disabled or homeless? Would public transportation be used to facilitate the evacuation process? Are provisions in place for housing the evacuees on a long term basis that includes child care and pet care? I wonder about the constitutionality of the law as well.
Is there a link to the text of the new law?

Texas has the best hurricane evacuation plans of any state, period! We have paired counties such as the one I work in Bell, 200 miles inland, with coastal Brazoria, just west of Galveston Island.

The evacuation for Ike started about three days before landfall for the 'special needs' with what ever special transportation requirements furnished. Then evacuation for others started with transportation to the bus locations available. When the buses arrived here, we had shelters ready with food, beds and if necessary medical other special requirements available.

I did a round of the facilities several days after the initial evacuation and many of the people were ready to make this their home. The shelters were furnished by various groups and the staff was 90% volunteers. The kids had games and other energy reducing aids available.

Yes, we have facilities for pets and other large animals. The pets are kept in kennels and transportable furnished from the shelters to the kennels so that the evacuees can visit their animals. Veterinarian care is also furnished.

For those that choose to self evacuate, routes are clearly defined with supplemental fuel and rest stops along the routes. Generators are furnished to critically located fueling points.

I can understand the need for the law, several people, whose bodies will never be found, would be alive today if it had been used on Bolivar Peninsular. Evacuate or die was a valid warning for the impact area.

Will the law be abused? Yes, just as speed traps abound around the country, but for the most part it will be used as intended. I know many of the officials involved due to our planning meetings and I can assure you their intentions is to save as many lives as possible without putting 'last' responders' lives in jeopardy.

I have not seen or read the law so I do not know how it covers media people. I was not even aware of the law until I saw this thread. It is on my 'to do' list.

[Ric Burney]

From what Warren posted, it seems that the 'teeth' of this new law is more aimed at recovering the costs of rescue efforts who chose to stay and got in trouble doing so.

[Marcus Opitz]

Like Warren said, I wonder if this could morph into enforcement of travel on high risk days….I hope not. You would think would be hard to interrupt the commerce and activity in the plains on a day where although severe weather is likely, but not as certain a hurricane about to make landfall….I could see this being expanded to include anybody within 5 miles of a tornado, or other dangerous weather phenomenon. I think assistance to people unable to evacuate should be the focus instead of forced evacuation. It is a shame that stubborn people get killed in situations like this, but I don't like where the trend is headed. Living live is inherently dangerous (unless you live an a padded room) and there is a point where protecting ourselves from ourselves makes it uncomfortable.

I will venture to GUESS that a study was performed to compare the search/rescue costs if some stayed vs. the cost to secure an assumed "vacant area" (not counting looters-although likely fewer). Remember, many jurisdictions budgets are in the red and cost control ranks way up there with basic security, ect.

[Joshua Nall]

I can understand the need for the law, several people, whose bodies will never be found, would be alive today if it had been used on Bolivar Peninsular.

This can be applied to almost anything. Folks get killed by lightning too. Are we going to pass a law you have to go indoors during thunderstorms. These folks would be alive today if they had of been indoors.

It's illegal for kids to ride in the back of a truck now... that was a real joy when I was growing up... but a few folks got killed... so they passed a law. Are we going to do this with everything?

Lot's of folks die from eating wrong and being lazy, I respect their right to eat wrong and be lazy. Government should not dictate what they eat and it should not pay for medical bills due to their decision.

Able bodied people should be responsible for themselves and should suffer the consequences of their decisions (staying put during a hurricane) without government interference or help. If people want to be ignorant, let them be ignorant, and face ruin. But no... the "smart" folks have to tell all the dumb folks what to do.

What this mentality leads to is out of control government. When "the people"...like the storm watcher guy... loose control of government they loose their freedoms. It really is that simple and it will start to effect our hobby and every other aspect of life. LOOK AT HISTORY... never underestimate the power of government to control you.... completely. It doesn't matter what the Constitution says when things start tipping that way.

And professor Gates cannot be arrested in his own home for having a big mouth or complaining loudly.

I respect law enforcement's authority to maintain control and enforce existing law. I hate media has not been reporting the full story. Gates followed the officer OUTSIDE his home and continued to insult him, in front of other officers and within earshot of other homes, even after given two warnings that he would be arrested if he continued.

[Warren Faidley]

And professor Gates cannot be arrested in his own home for having a big mouth or complaining loudly.

But in reality concerning the new Texas law:

Not that these actions have not, de facto, been in effect elsewhere for awhile now. Myself, and two other chasers were "arrested" in 1998 in N. Car. and dragged into a makeshift court IN THE EYE of hurricane Bonnie. After Ivan in Pensacola I was sternly warned and so was Jim Leonard, several times," to get the hell off the streets immediately or be taken to jail" by local cops. Terry Nixon was told he had 5 minutes to get out of Cameron County, LA during hurricane Danny in 1985; when the officer was radioded to respond to an emergency. "If you are here when I get back, you are in the pokey."




Good point and very true, but there was no written law at time aimed specifically towards mandatory evacuations, or those of us who like to cover the streets during a hurricane. If one of you had been arrested and thrown in jail, they would have had a hard time charging you with something that would have stuck in court.

Like most new laws, it's very vague and I'm sure the first time it's imposed all hell will break loose if they try to physically force people out. What is the penalty? Just time in jail? The Civil Liberties Union will blow a fuse and good for them this time. This reminds me of the Forest Service's attitude towards fires. They use to allow open media access. But because the media often printed or televised buildings burning (even though it was not the firefighters fault) the Forest Service hated the bad publicity and feared civil actions, so they locked down the firelines like the scene was Area 51. In fact, California eventually had to establish a "media access law." This is one reason I stopped covering wildfires in the Nazi-like controlled regions.

Again, I really do not see the forced evacuations as an issue for chasers....... yet..... but it is something to keep an eye on.

W.

[richhorodner]

In practice, whether there are laws or not against being in a hurricane strike zone, the important thing is common sense. If a law officer tells you to move along, you should move along. (They generally carry a gun, club, tazer, and handcuffs.).

He (she) has the ability to make your life miserable for at least a while; whether he has legal backing, is pissed off that he has to be out in the storm working, or resents storm chasers in general.

There is a time and place for everything; including when to challenge the constitutionality of specific new or old local ordinances.

As far as media people not likely to have problems: sometimes the local authorities give them preference, other times just the opposite. The instance I mentioned earlier when we were hauled into court during Hur. Bonnie, it was the presence of a CBS crew with us that pissed off the cops. The ONLY words us chasers had to say were: "OK, officer, we will follow you back to the mainland."

The actual political situation that exists during the height of a hurricane can most accurately be described as: Anarchy.

[Jim Edds]

I recall on the night after 2003 Isabel on the Outer Banks, a CBS News crew that broke curfew. Cops stopped them and wanted to cart them off to a cell - crendentials and all. Needles to say, they were not allowed to proceed any further.

As far as all the gear on top of the chaser vehicle - I've seen other chasers caught up in downed power/phone lines. At night you can't see the low overhanging lines because the power is out. You get stuck in the lines and you're own your own - they may be live maybe not and the power company is not coming out to help you. Hurricane chasing is not like Tornado chasing. A lot of different things can go wrong in a Hurricane. Trust me :)

[Chris Allington]

Like Warren said, I wonder if this could morph into enforcement of travel on high risk days….I hope not. You would think would be hard to interrupt the commerce and activity in the plains on a day where although severe weather is likely, but not as certain a hurricane about to make landfall….I could see this being expanded to include anybody within 5 miles of a tornado, or other dangerous weather phenomenon. I think assistance to people unable to evacuate should be the focus instead of forced evacuation. It is a shame that stubborn people get killed in situations like this, but I don't like where the trend is headed. Living live is inherently dangerous (unless you live an a padded room) and there is a point where protecting ourselves from ourselves makes it uncomfortable.

I will venture to GUESS that a study was performed to compare the search/rescue costs if some stayed vs. the cost to secure an assumed "vacant area" (not counting looters-although likely fewer). Remember, many jurisdictions budgets are in the red and cost control ranks way up there with basic security, ect.

I would highly doubt they could apply the same things to severe weather events on the plains. For one, it would contradict the shelter in place style of warning used for tornadoes, and I would guess this hurricane law applies more to the days leading up to the event, rather than while the storm is on-going in the area.

[Jim wyman]

Interesting... Reminds me of a TV story I saw about park police out west charging people who get stuck on the mountain or in cliffs to be rescued. This was due to the fact that people out of state were coming to the parks to rock climb, cliff jump, or hand gliding off moutains and having to get rescued.

I would agree. Too much government dictating to people what to do and how to do it. If someone wants to stay in their home and they get killed, that is there choice, no one elses.

On the topic of mandtory evacuation for homeless and infirmed... Look how long it took them to get buses into NO AFTER Katrina......brilliant idea! NOT!

[Mark Sudduth]

Now watch, Texas won't have another hurricane at all for the next 25 years. Wouldn't that just be the cat's meow?

[Marcus Opitz]

I would highly doubt they could apply the same things to severe weather events on the plains. For one, it would contradict the shelter in place style of warning used for tornadoes, and I would guess this hurricane law applies more to the days leading up to the event, rather than while the storm is on-going in the area.


True,
My point is that vague interpretation of laws that mean well but are incorrectly (or correctly depending on your point of view) applied by certain jurisdictions for certain reasons...(local law enforcement, ect.)

[Jim Edds]

Might this new law be fallout from the Bolivar Peninsula tragedy during Ike? I know they had to suspend helicopter rescues of that area during the daylight hours before Ike came ashore. One case I read in the local Galveston paper, a lady on Bolivar who moved down from up north, said in her last phone call to a friend she "survived Rita" and felt she and her dog would be fine for Ike. She realized when the storm surge was coming up that she'd made a terrible mistake. She didn't make it - they found her a few days later.

I was surprised how many folks stayed on Bolivar and even Galveston for that matter. I can tell you Pensacola Beach is deserted during a hurricane. They know better. Ok, there will be a chaser or two out there but the sane folks will be gone!

I think the fact that so many died on Bolivar will be a lesson learned for the next one. I'll bet they have better compliance with another storm like Ike - at least on the barrier Islands. But like Mark said, it might be 25 years before they get another one like Ike. I suppose if someone doesn't want to evacuate they just don't answer the knock on the door. Police aren't going to kick in the door.

[Joe Dorn]

Interesting... Reminds me of a TV story I saw about park police out west charging people who get stuck on the mountain or in cliffs to be rescued. This was due to the fact that people out of state were coming to the parks to rock climb, cliff jump, or hand gliding off moutains and having to get rescued.

I would agree. Too much government dictating to people what to do and how to do it. If someone wants to stay in their home and they get killed, that is there choice, no one elses.

On the topic of mandtory evacuation for homeless and infirmed... Look how long it took them to get buses into NO AFTER Katrina......brilliant idea! NOT!

Katrina was New Orleans, Rita was Texas... Texas used Rita as a learning experience and now has THE BEST evacuation plans, period!

If people follow the Texas's evacuation plans, the only need for buses after landfall will be to return people to their homes.

If people stay in their homes facing probable death then thats not the 'guvment's' business but if the 'guvment' don't send a thousand helicopters and five thousand responders to rescue the dumb butts then its the 'guvment's' fault. Hello!

FWIW, I understand the the critical areas for evacuation maps have been redrawn with the emphasis on surge zones and less on wind damage areas.

[richhorodner]

=Joe Dorn;23649
FWIW, I understand the the critical areas for evacuation maps have been redrawn with the emphasis on surge zones and less on wind damage areas.

Why would they have ever had evacuation maps for wind?

I guess the areas suggested for evacuation on those old maps were all those places that were ABOVE ground; and or not located inside a nucular plant.

If they ever existed, I can just see some genius drawing a line X miles inland, all along the coast; drawn with a maroon crayon.
Or maybe the system stated: "if a hurricane is coming, secede from the union."

[Warren Faidley]

I think the fact that so many died on Bolivar will be a lesson learned for the next one. I'll bet they have better compliance with another storm like Ike - at least on the barrier Islands. But like Mark said, it might be 25 years before they get another one like Ike. I suppose if someone doesn't want to evacuate they just don't answer the knock on the door. Police aren't going to kick in the door.

There is a certain "Darwinism" at work here. If you live in a place like Crystal Beach, TX, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know if you stay under certain conditions, you might die. When I drove through that area the day before Ike struck, it was a very uncomfortable drive to the ferry, which crosses to Galveston. There was water already rising over the highway. You could sense something was wrong. I knew if I missed the ferry, I might not make it back to I-10. The radio broadcasts were very specific. But once more, like we have seen on high-risk days, people will be out walking their dog (a la Golden Spur trailer park in Andover on 4-26-91), oblivious to anything, and they die. If the Texas State Government really wanted to save lives, they would simply NOT allow people to rebuild homes in the most hazardous of storm surge areas. Turn the regions into beautiful State Parks or recreational areas where camping activities can be regulated and cancelled/evacuated under Park rules.

W.

[Jim Edds]

If the Texas State Government really wanted to save lives, they would simply NOT allow people to rebuild homes in the most hazardous of storm surge areas. Turn the regions into beautiful State Parks or recreational areas where camping activities can be regulated and cancelled/evacuated under Park rules.

W.

I hear ya but even in Pensacola after Ivan they rebuilt on Pensacola Beach and then some. I mean they are building motels right smack on the shoreline. So go figure why they do that knowing full well the storm surge is going to wreck it all over again one day. My guess is those barrier Islands don't get hit enough to prevent rebuilding. Ivan was the worst one to hit Pensacola since 1926. So if you don't get hit that often, then maybe it's worth rolling the dice? Pensacola Beach is really built up but have you seen Fort Walton and Destin? Sheesh! Looks like Miami Beach !

[David Wolfson]

Budding and bloomed lawyers can weigh in, but I think the issues mostly revolve around the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments' interpretation of due process and eminent domain. With respect to shore property there's a case that's rather well known to planners -- Nollan v. California Coastal Commission. Basically the USSC ruled in 1987 that government had better have a darn good reason for placing new requirements on shore property development, and in any case owes the property owner just compensation for the "taking".

[Robert Rohloff]

One needs to look past the evacuation order, numerous other laws have been put into place to deal with disaster situations. President Bush suspended the posse comitatus which prevented deployment of federal troops on U.S. soil. The U.S. Army went active with the 3rd ID stationed in Georgia in October 2008. This will be a rapid response division to head to troubled cities. This includes A1Abrams tanks, Apachie attack helicopters ect. Martial law allows many things that normally could not occur to happen, such as shooting looters. What ever action is needed to regain control could be used.
==
Contrary to many media reports at the time, martial law was not declared in New Orleans (http://www.stormtrack.org/wiki/New_Orleans) in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (http://www.stormtrack.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina), because no such term exists in Louisiana state law (http://www.stormtrack.org/wiki/Louisiana_law). However, a State of Emergency (http://www.stormtrack.org/wiki/State_of_Emergency) was declared, which does give unique powers to the state government similar to those of martial law. On the evening of August 31 (http://www.stormtrack.org/wiki/August_31), 2005 (http://www.stormtrack.org/wiki/2005), New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin (http://www.stormtrack.org/wiki/Ray_Nagin) nominally declared "martial law" and said that officers didn't have to observe civil rights (http://www.stormtrack.org/wiki/Civil_rights) and Miranda rights (http://www.stormtrack.org/wiki/Miranda_warning) in stopping the looters. [12] (http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/#cite_note-11) Federal troops were a common sight in New Orleans after Katrina. At one point, as many as 15,000 federal troops and National Guardsmen patrolled the city. Additionally it has been reported that armed contractors from Blackwater USA (http://www.stormtrack.org/wiki/Blackwater_USA) assisted in policing the city.[13] (http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/#cite_note-12)
See also "What Is Martial Law? And is New Orleans under it?" (http://www.slate.com/id/2125584/nav/tap1/) by the Slate (http://www.stormtrack.org/wiki/Slate_(magazine)) Explainer.

The martial law concept in the U.S. is closely tied with the right of habeas corpus (http://www.stormtrack.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus), which is in essence the right to a hearing on lawful imprisonment, or more broadly, the supervision of law enforcement by the judiciary. The ability to suspend habeas corpus is often equated with martial law. Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution (http://www.stormtrack.org/wiki/U.S._Constitution) states, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion, the public Safety may require it."
In United States law (http://www.stormtrack.org/wiki/United_States_law), martial law is limited by several court decisions that were handed down between the American Civil War (http://www.stormtrack.org/wiki/American_Civil_War) and World War II (http://www.stormtrack.org/wiki/World_War_II). In 1878, Congress (http://www.stormtrack.org/wiki/Congress_of_the_United_States) passed the Posse Comitatus Act (http://www.stormtrack.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act), which forbids military involvement in domestic law enforcement without congressional approval. On October 1, 2002 United States Northern Command (http://www.stormtrack.org/wiki/United_States_Northern_Command) was established to provide command and control of Department of Defense homeland defense efforts and to coordinate defense support of civil authorities. [8] (http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/#cite_note-7).

There were numerous gun battles in NO after Katrina, organized criminal groups moved in or were in place to loot and randsack the city. A true fiqure of the number of shooting victims who died might never be known.

[Robert Rohloff]

Thousands of Troops Are Deployed on U.S. Streets Ready to Carry Out "Crowd Control"

Members of Congress were told they could face martial law if they didn't pass the bailout bill. This will not be the last time.

By Naomi Wolf

08/10/08 "AlterNet (http://www.alternet.org/rights/101958/thousands_of_troops_are_deployed_on_u.s._streets_r eady_to_carry_out_%22crowd_control%22/)" -- Background: the First Brigade of the Third Infantry Division, three to four thousand soldiers, has been deployed in the United States as of October 1. Their stated mission is the form of crowd control they practiced in Iraq, subduing "unruly individuals," and the management of a national emergency. I am in Seattle and heard from the brother of one of the soldiers that they are engaged in exercises now. Amy Goodman reported (http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2008/10/2/amy_goodmans_latest_column_invasion_of_the_sea_smu rfs) that an Army spokesperson confirmed that they will have access to lethal and non lethal crowd control technologies and tanks.
George Bush struck down Posse Comitatus, thus making it legal for military to patrol the U.S. He has also legally established that in the "War on Terror," the U.S. is at war around the globe and thus the whole world is a battlefield. Thus the U.S. is also a battlefield.
He also led change to the 1807 Insurrection Act to give him far broader powers in the event of a loosely defined "insurrection" or many other "conditions" he has the power to identify. The Constitution allows the suspension of habeas corpus -- habeas corpus prevents us from being seized by the state and held without trial -- in the event of an "insurrection." With his own army force now, his power to call a group of protesters or angry voters "insurgents" staging an "insurrection" is strengthened.
U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman of California said to Congress, captured on C-Span and viewable (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaG9d_4zij8) on YouTube, that individual members of the House were threatened with martial law within a week if they did not pass the bailout bill:

"The only way they can pass this bill is by creating and sustaining a panic atmosphere. … Many of us were told in private conversations that if we voted against this bill on Monday that the sky would fall, the market would drop two or three thousand points the first day and a couple of thousand on the second day, and a few members were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted no."If this is true and Rep. Sherman is not delusional, I ask you to consider that if they are willing to threaten martial law now, it is foolish to assume they will never use that threat again. It is also foolish to trust in an orderly election process to resolve this threat. And why deploy the First Brigade? One thing the deployment accomplishes is to put teeth into such a threat.
I interviewed Vietnam veteran, retired U.S. Air Force Colonel and patriot David Antoon for clarification:
"If the President directed the First Brigade to arrest Congress, what could stop him?"
"Nothing. Their only recourse is to cut off funding. The Congress would be at the mercy of military leaders to go to them and ask them not to obey illegal orders."
"But these orders are now legal?'"
"Correct."
"If the President directs the First Brigade to arrest a bunch of voters, what would stop him?"
"Nothing. It would end up in courts but the action would have been taken."
"If the President directs the First Brigade to kill civilians, what would stop him?"
"Nothing."
"What would prevent him from sending the First Brigade to arrest the editor of the Washington Post?"
"Nothing. He could do what he did in Iraq -- send a tank down a street in Washington and fire a shell into the Washington Post as they did into Al Jazeera, and claim they were firing at something else."
"What happens to members of the First Brigade who refuse to take up arms against U.S. citizens?"
"They'd probably be treated as deserters as in Iraq: arrested, detained and facing five years in prison. In Iraq a study by Ann Wright shows that deserters -- reservists who refused to go back to Iraq -- got longer sentences than war criminals."
"Does Congress have any military of their own?"
"No. Congress has no direct control of any military units. The Governors have the National Guard but they report to the President in an emergency that he declares."
"Who can arrest the President?"
"The Attorney General can arrest the President after he leaves or after impeachment."
[Note: Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi has asserted it is possible for District Attorneys around the country to charge President Bush with murder if they represent districts where one or more military members who have been killed in Iraq formerly resided.]
"Given the danger do you advocate impeachment?"
"Yes. President Bush struck down Posse Comitatus -- which has prevented, with a penalty of two years in prison, U.S. leaders since after the Civil War from sending military forces into our streets -- with a 'signing statement.' He should be impeached immediately in a bipartisan process to prevent the use of military forces and mercenary forces against U.S. citizens"
"Should Americans call on senior leaders in the Military to break publicly with this action and call on their own men and women to disobey these orders?"
"Every senior military officer's loyalty should ultimately be to the Constitution. Every officer should publicly break with any illegal order, even from the President."
"But if these are now legal. If they say, 'Don't obey the Commander in Chief,' what happens to the military?"
"Perhaps they would be arrested and prosecuted as those who refuse to participate in the current illegal war. That's what would be considered a coup."
"But it's a coup already."
"Yes

[richhorodner]

Thousands of Troops Are Deployed on U.S. Streets Ready to Carry Out "Crowd Control"



http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2288/2285482143_91de4d8183.jpg

[Robert Rohloff]

Rich, instead of being insulting why do you not make a reply to the two articles? You overlook the fact that the 3rd ID now is deployed in the U.S. for response in the continental U.S. After what occurred in New Orleans I would expect a pre-deployment of the unit in or around a possible major land falling hurricane.

The point is that with new laws that have been passed chasing as we have known it may be changed. A forced evacuation is quite possible and chasers not abiding by it could easily wind up in jail. When people talk about certain rights and protections as cited at the start of this tread they need to know many of those rights and protections can be suspended, since 1995 Oklahoma City bombing numerous changes have been made to Federal law giving the government broad powers in the time of emergency or attack.
With 32 years in law enforcement I can assure you the changes are real and can be used. Make all the jokes you want but do not cry when you are secured for your safety in a zone of evacuation.

[richhorodner]

Rich, instead of being insulting why do you not make a reply to the two articles? You overlook the fact that the 3rd ID now is deployed in the U.S. for response in the continental U.S. After what occurred in New Orleans I would expect a pre-deployment of the unit in or around a possible major land falling hurricane.

The point is that with new laws that have been passed chasing as we have known it may be changed. A forced evacuation is quite possible and chasers not abiding by it could easily wind up in jail. When people talk about certain rights and protections as cited at the start of this tread they need to know many of those rights and protections can be suspended, since 1995 Oklahoma City bombing numerous changes have been made to Federal law giving the government broad powers in the time of emergency or attack.
With 32 years in law enforcement I can assure you the changes are real and can be used. Make all the jokes you want but do not cry when you are secured for your safety in a zone of evacuation.

Well, responding to the articles would be getting into the political realm; and that is off-limits on this forum. I have been given demerits in the past when I took issue with some off the wall , right wing laws or pysho-talk in the past. Can't tell which moderator has their own radical political or religious agendas.

I was just being funny, not political in this case. I could have been agreeing with the articles or laws, or I could have been protesting them. Beauty (or ugly) is in the eye of the beholder.

For curiosity, in your mind, who or what was that picture of famous baseball comedian Max Patkin insulting? (I used to see him perform at pre-season Yankee-Oriole games in Miami; He would come in as behind -1st base coach, and his antics would crack up the pitcher so much they sometimes could not even reach the plate with their next pitch):

A. George Bush, for backing such a law
B. The publisher of the article, who may or may not have stated all actual facts
C. You, for using the thread to make a political statement
D. Paranoid folks who think the government is coming in black helicopters to take their guns
E. The public, for not protesting against such laws.
F. The described jackboots described in the article who will supposedly crack people's heads with their bats during a hurricane.
G. Something else??
------------

Actually, when it comes to hurricane chasing, the actual political atmosphere during the height of the hurricane can most accurately be described as: anarchy.

As I have noted, I was arrested once, in 1998, even though the cop at the roadblock looked at our Kosher credentials and let us onto the barrier island; but the second cop later didn't like us in his territory and hauled us in during the eye.

Also, it has become commonplace the last 10 years for the governor of the state under threat to impose a "state of emergency" into effect, and issue 24 hour curfews before and after the storm comes in.

No one is going to forcibly make people evacuate their homes if they don't want to. They will warn, and then ask for the names of their next of kin, in a final attempt to get the homeowner to come to their senses.

Laws or not, only an idiot officer is going to risk assault charges by dragging some old frail lady out of her home.

[Jason Foster]

For me, since it's on a chaser forum, is what does this mean for me as a chaser. Well, in some ways maybe it'll restrict the increasing number of people who think they can intercept a hurricane with no training or experience, or think tornado (plains) chasing qualifies them as a hurricane chaser when in fact it does not.

Also, I think that the truly good and experienced chasers won't be bothered too much with these situations because they will have the necessary contacts, whether it be at the Federal, state or local level to be given prior approval for access to the area. I'm not worried. For the few times I've been turned away by a LEO, I didnt' worry, because if I was close enough to have a LEO turn me away, I was close enough to get what I came for.

And sometimes there are just those LEO who still understand and respect chasers...and when they stop you, ask you what your doing (in a very stern and aggressive voice), you tell the truth, and their response is, "Oh, OK, then fine, go, go, go!". Gotta love it when that happens (increasingly rare though).

[Paul Stofer]

Don't think they had an evacuation in order... but.. there ya go... probably why texas is doing this...

http://news.aol.com/article/hurricane-bill-sweeps-spectators-out-to/634859

[Joshua Nall]

The girl dieing from Bill's waves, yeah that's sad... Just like it's sad that so many died riding motorcycles today. But I guess dieing in a motorcycle accident is more acceptable than dieing while out experiencing the power of nature. So they will make laws against placing yourself in dangerous situations and it will limit those of us who live to do that. I disagree with some of the following

For me, since it's on a chaser forum, is what does this mean for me as a chaser. Well, in some ways maybe it'll restrict the increasing number of people who think they can intercept a hurricane with no training or experience, or think tornado (plains) chasing qualifies them as a hurricane chaser when in fact it does not.

Also, I think that the truly good and experienced chasers won't be bothered too much with these situations because they will have the necessary contacts, whether it be at the Federal, state or local level to be given prior approval for access to the area. I'm not worried. For the few times I've been turned away by a LEO, I didnt' worry, because if I was close enough to have a LEO turn me away, I was close enough to get what I came for.

What qualifies an individual to be a hurricane chaser? and who decides that? "The truly good and experienced chasers... will have the necessary contacts".... well that's just great, now I have to have contacts to be "allowed" to go experience a hurricane. Who will make those decisions... someone other than me?

This topic is one of great interest to me, so not having my say is like wanting a dog to not complain about being tied up after a day of prowling. And I'm certainly not anti-government, I realize there must be control especially in intense situations. But I don't agree with elitist attitudes or those that are willing to just roll over and give up their freedoms in exchange for safety, and especially those that want to take freedoms from others in order to "keep them safe". I heard Colonel Oliver North say on the radio the other day that the US is the only country left in the world where you can pack up and drive/move to the opposite side of the country with out some type of permission or permit... other than a driver's license. Not sure if that is 100% accurate, I haven't researched it, but the fact remains we do still have it so good here in the United States of America. And... it is rapidly changing.