"... in a case of large scale natural disaster, a sizable chunk of the population in certain areas of the country are going to be carrying weapons. I can further guarantee you that a goodly percentage of them may be wearing camo..."

From a law enforcement standpoint, in a large scale disaster of any kind, you can expect the bad guys to be out in force (that is why the good guys would be armed, right?), and to a peace officer, a man with a gun is a man with a gun. So both good and bad camo'd gun carriers can expect to be looking down the barrels of the badge carrying good guys guns until the good can be picked out from the bad.

"...Surely you have had sufficient training and/or experience to help you to differentiate between lawfully armed citizens and a genuine threat?..."

Exactly how does one tell a good guy in camo carrying a gun from a bad guy in camo carrying a gun? By first taking the gun away from him, making sure he is no longer a threat of any kind (that often means handcuffs), and spending valuable time trying to get thru on a badly overloaded radio system (assuming it still works), so the dispatcher, in between answering 911 calls and dispatching officers here and there, can run the gun carrying guy thru the computer system (assuming that still works). A lot of this will of course depend on the location. What scares the heck out of people in Los Angeles might be taken as the norm in rural Colorado...

I would suggest to you that in a large scale disaster the good guys who are refugees are going to vastly outnumber the bad guys--exactly like they do during normal times. And anyone who cannot tell the difference between, say, a 70 year old retired civil servant waiting patiently at a checkpoint and an Al Queda member attempting to evade said checkpoint is in the wrong line of work, and probably shouldn't be pointing guns at anybody. I'd be willing to bet that the Al Queda dirtbag would not be carrying visible weapons and would not be wearing camo, for a start.

Without checks and balances (independent judiciary, legislative body, armed populace, etc.), a Constitution is nothing more than a pretty piece of paper with beautiful words written in an elegant hand. If you don't believe that I suggest you check out the Constitution of the former Soviet Union. A true thing of beauty--and totally worthless.

The President of the USA does have the power to declare a temporary state of emergency which can include the temporary suspension of some civil liberties. The keys words here are temporary and some. Surely the leaders in Scotland have some of the same sorts of powers? (Just out of curiousity, has there ever been a natural disaster in Scotland on the scale of, say, Katrina?)

As far as "well understood and well known international laws" go, one thing that the Constitution of the USA does do is trump those laws. And the USA does recognize and abide by the Geneva Convention. We simply don't apply it to non-POW scumbags like those currently residing in Gitmo. As far as I'm concerned they can rot there.

"...difference between, say, a 70 year old retired civil servant waiting patiently at a checkpoint and an Al Queda member attempting to evade said checkpoint..."

This is true, but I thought we were talking about a natural disaster here, not an Al Queda attack. Natural disasters of a large scale often bring out looters, some armed, and other assorted bad guys, looking for a free deal. They come in all ages and sizes, just like the good guys trying to defend their families, homes, and property. Those bad guys are the reason you saw officers from all over the country being sent to New Orleans, and carrying AR-15's as they walked the streets, going door to door checking on people. And to them, a guy with a gun, in camo or anything else, unless he is setting on his front porch, or the rooftop of his business, is a suspect until proven otherwise.

The mental image of a retired 70 year old civil servant in camo does bring a smile to my face...

Unfortunately, even minding your own business wasn't enough to keep some of them from stealing your only means of self defense. And wearing camo had nothing to do with it. Thankfully more and more states are passing laws making such confiscations illegal.



Me too. While I'm not a civil servant and not yet retired, I do hope to spend a goodly portion of my retirement in a duck blind.

"...stealing your only means of self defense..."

I won't even go there, being a big fan of guns and gun ownership by all legal citizens...

Re Johno - I am based in Scotland not far (less than 30 miles) from my Forum Name

Cheers, I'm at the top of the Kingdom where the tornadoes are.

Again we maybe straying into a political discussion but I think it is relevant as it is getting into the territory of the legal and moral aspects of Government disaster preparedness and planning for a wide scale emergency. 'Not being seen' has certainly generated lots of avenues for discussion.



I absolutely agree with you one hundred percent about the checks and balances but other events and issues can have an effect in the break up of Union States. The USA and its European Allies did not defeat the Soviet Union, Soviet incompetence, Nationalism and corruption did. The former Soviet Union did indeed fall apart and its constitution failed to halt its collapse from within. The Soviet Union collapsed because of a number of reasons. Firstly it military spending became unsustainable, which almost bankrupted the country, then came an environmental nuclear power disaster called Chernobyl which had quickly followed on from the period of disastrous military adventure in Afghanistan. The central demand supply economy became a massive joke which was recognized by the its populous as a massive joke. Attempted reform and Coup d'état could not halt the fact the the USSR could not pay its way in the world. Its leadership decided that instead of repressive action which could have led to Civil War the USSR became no more. The rest is history. Now imagine if everyone in the USSR had a gun.



Again I agree with you one hundred percent. Are the powers to declare a State of Emergency a constitutional amendment or a Presidential Order? I do know that there is the The Posse Comitatus Act which prohibits the US Army and US Air Force from enforcing civil criminal law within the United States. As Scotland is in a Union with the rest of the United Kingdom, the leaders in the devolved parliament in Scotland have no powers to declare a State of Emergency only the UK Government has this power and then only after consulting the European Union because the UK government is subject to the European Human Rights Act to which it is a signatory. Scotland has its own civil and criminal law within the UK which can cause some problems for the Prime Minister of the UK. When it comes to Scottish affairs the Prime Minister has to tread extremely carefully as most within Scotland would quickly call for Independence if any form of civil governance was replaced by a military one. There is no written constitution within the UK as the UK is a constitutional monarchy. The Queen is the head of state and theoretically would have the same powers as a US President. The UK parliamentary system effectively does not allow the head of state to have any direct power in any political decision making but the Prime Minister does under the head of states name. There are serious concerns about corruption and that cabinet governance and parliamentary accountability is under threat. This is why Tony Blair is being forced to quit.
In Scotland there has not been any disaster comparable to the Katrina disaster in regard to the loss of life suffered because of a storm. What I found shocking about the Katrina disaster were the days preceding and following the Hurricane. As Hurricanes are not unusual in the Gulf Coast where were the preparedness plans and disaster relieve plans. As I have access to the imagery at Dundee Satellite Receiving Station I remember that it was quite obvious 2-3 days prior to Hurricane Katrina reaching land that New Orleans area was going to suffer a major weather event and that New Orleans could be potentially flooded out because of the environmental damage and inappropriate land use of the Mississippi delta wetlands when the tidal storm surge hit. I think the US authorities knew this also as it was being reported around the world that this was potentially going to happen. The mandatory evacuation was a shambles, it was too late and it was too ineffective. Even the Cubans and Mexicans it would appear are much more on the ball when it comes to disaster planning for exactly the same type of incident. It was literally every man woman and child for themselves with the poor and immobile being left to fend for themselves. Once Katrina passed then the real tragedy began to unfold. The poor and immobile left behind then began to fend for themselves as would any sane person who was left without fresh water and food - this was interpreted as looting by the US media, punishable by summary execution if only they had the men willing together with the rifles and bullets. When the full scale of the disaster was recognized as such by the International community even from countries like Cuba and Venezuela who offered help from the limited resources, the offers of direct aid and help were only to be turned down simply because of the political embarrassment felt by the US government. Even the aid sent by the UK was destroyed rather than be distributed. This aid would have saved many lives. Only the European oil reserves it seems were warmly received. On the State level even the incarcerated were left to fend for themselves left to drown in the rising waters. The Katrina disaster was on the most part a human and environmental planning and relieve disaster which was fully predicted and badly managed. The hurricane was the bad weather which exposed the lack of public services, the incompetence and the corruption.



The lack of Habeas Corpus even for the 'non-POW scumbags' is the thin edge of the wedge.

Then the collapse would have happened sooner, thus sparing the world--particularly the Soviet people--a lot of death and misery.



20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it?



I think it helps that Cuba and Mexico are not built largely on low-lying areas like New Orleans is. All the planning in the world isn't going to hold back the ocean if it wants to come in.



I don't recall the "poor and immobile" being subject to "summary execution". In fact, it turned out that reports of killings, whether looting related or not, were vastly exaggerated by the media.



The offers of aid from Castro and Chavez were rightly rejected for what they were: symbolic, useless anti-US propaganda. And if you are referring to the UK MRE's I'm not sure they were destroyed. I remember some ultra left wing UK newspaper (was it the Guardian?) claimed that's what was happening but, given the state of the British press, I have my doubts. I didn't hear about European oil. If true, then thanks. I guess maybe Europe owes the USA a few favors in return for what we have done for them over the years.



I suggest that if you are taken in arms against the US and its allies then you damn well better be fighting on behalf of a foreign government willing to take responsibility for you. That's what is meant by a POW. Otherwise enjoy your stay in Cuba. You may call that a "wedge". I call it a line.