Full Version: Mandatory/Forced Evacuation
From AP/CBS:
and
While there have been no reports of actual forced removals (yet), the NO Police Chief seems to indicate it will eventually happen:
Before I post the questions that this event raises, I'd like to remind everyone to focus the debate at two levels. The first obviously deals with the potential forced evacuation of the citizens of New Orleans. The second focuses on future potential natural or unnatural(ala 9/11) disasters.
Questions for debate:
1) Should the remaining (non-voluntary evacuees) of New Orleans be forced to leave the city?
2) If they somehow remain behind, do they forfeit any claim to government assistance (health care, supplies, or otherwise) related to Katrina recovery efforts?
3) In a general sense, how much effort should the government spend forcing people to evacuate an area in which there is a known and imminent risk? Are there greater circumstances than others where such a forced evacuation is feasible? If so, what?
QUOTE
(CBS/AP) Police and soldiers coaxed some of Hurricane Katrina's stubborn holdouts from their homes Wednesday after the mayor ordered all 10,000 or so residents still in this ruined city evacuated — by force, if necessary — because of the risk of fires and disease.
and
QUOTE
CBS News Correspondent John Roberts reports that some residents are complaining about the aggressive tactics of some of state forces who've joined the evacuation effort.
"They came at gunpoint, told us, 'Come out of the house with a gun, we'll shoot you. Get in the boat now," said Rick Matthew.
"They came at gunpoint, told us, 'Come out of the house with a gun, we'll shoot you. Get in the boat now," said Rick Matthew.
While there have been no reports of actual forced removals (yet), the NO Police Chief seems to indicate it will eventually happen:
QUOTE
"We have thousands of people who want to voluntarily evacuate at this time," Police Chief Eddie Compass said. "Once they all are out, then we'll concentrate our forces on mandatory evacuation."
Before I post the questions that this event raises, I'd like to remind everyone to focus the debate at two levels. The first obviously deals with the potential forced evacuation of the citizens of New Orleans. The second focuses on future potential natural or unnatural(ala 9/11) disasters.
Questions for debate:
1) Should the remaining (non-voluntary evacuees) of New Orleans be forced to leave the city?
2) If they somehow remain behind, do they forfeit any claim to government assistance (health care, supplies, or otherwise) related to Katrina recovery efforts?
3) In a general sense, how much effort should the government spend forcing people to evacuate an area in which there is a known and imminent risk? Are there greater circumstances than others where such a forced evacuation is feasible? If so, what?
QUOTE(Doclotus @ Sep 7 2005, 06:57 PM)
Questions for debate:
1) Should the remaining (non-voluntary evacuees) of New Orleans be forced to leave the city?
2) If they somehow remain behind, do they forfeit any claim to government assistance (health care, supplies, or otherwise) related to Katrina recovery efforts?
3) In a general sense, how much effort should the government spend forcing people to evacuate an area in which there is a known and imminent risk? Are there greater circumstances than others where such a forced evacuation is feasible? If so, what?
1) Should the remaining (non-voluntary evacuees) of New Orleans be forced to leave the city?
2) If they somehow remain behind, do they forfeit any claim to government assistance (health care, supplies, or otherwise) related to Katrina recovery efforts?
3) In a general sense, how much effort should the government spend forcing people to evacuate an area in which there is a known and imminent risk? Are there greater circumstances than others where such a forced evacuation is feasible? If so, what?
Everyone knows how I love governmental control.
I don't. 1. I don't know why they should...Isn't the hurricane over? Is it for cleanup purposes? If it is, then I suppose they should be removed. They can't purposefully, legally risk people's lives cleaning up.
2. I think that may be based on regulations and things, but otherwise I'd say yes. The people who aren't leaving are either A. disabled, where they should be helped or B. insubordinate. For this debate, I'll concern the insubordinates. They are basically saying that they don't need help from the government, so why do they get anything else? I am confused towards why people would be insubordinate though...
3. This is kind of a similar question. I don't think insubordinates should be forced. Disabled people should be accomodated. This is like a seat belt law or drug laws. Let insubordinates and delinquents destroy themselves. It's definetely not the government's business unless it harms others. I need examples of why people aren't evacuating though.
QUOTE
1) Should the remaining (non-voluntary evacuees) of New Orleans be forced to leave the city?
This would be something that would be very hard to enforce. It would take an incredible amount of manpower and money to pay people to go in and force out those who are reluctant to leave. At the same time, yes, people should be forced to leave. With the water sitting around in New Orleans, we are starting to see some dire health threats emerge. It is for the public good that people not be exposed to the water, even if the people don't have the common sense to realize it.
QUOTE
2) If they somehow remain behind, do they forfeit any claim to government assistance (health care, supplies, or otherwise) related to Katrina recovery efforts?
I don't believe you should keep supplies or anyting like that way from people who choose to remain behind. The government should be an enligthened provider, even if people choose to be in the dark when it coems to their thinking and overall rationale for acting the way that they do.
QUOTE
3) In a general sense, how much effort should the government spend forcing people to evacuate an area in which there is a known and imminent risk? Are there greater circumstances than others where such a forced evacuation is feasible? If so, what?
The best effort it can muster!. We have an area with corpses out in the streets. We have floodwaters that are 10 times more toxic in terms of sewage viruses like E Coli. You also have 25,000 body bags being prepared.(source) This isn't a minor incident at all and a forced evacuation is direly needed to help remedy this brewing problem. You can't give up trying to protect the public simply due to a few stubborn individuals whose number one concern on their minds isn't the public's safety.
1) Should the remaining (non-voluntary evacuees) of New Orleans be forced to leave the city?
2) If they somehow remain behind, do they forfeit any claim to government assistance (health care, supplies, or otherwise) related to Katrina recovery efforts?
3) In a general sense, how much effort should the government spend forcing people to evacuate an area in which there is a known and imminent risk? Are there greater circumstances than others where such a forced evacuation is feasible? If so, what?
1. Unfortunately, the people who failed to leave as requested turned into part of the problem more than part of the solution. I can respect protection of property but at the risk of personal detriment is questionable. I don't think having them leave now will make any difference.
2. I doubt whether you stayed or whether you left and returned, will have any reflection on the amount of benefits that will become available for these people.
3. No effort. In this land of freedom, we cannot be forced to do anything. Besides in a circumstance of known and imminent risk the consequence is death. It becomes a personal decision...one that can not be put into US law.
2) If they somehow remain behind, do they forfeit any claim to government assistance (health care, supplies, or otherwise) related to Katrina recovery efforts?
3) In a general sense, how much effort should the government spend forcing people to evacuate an area in which there is a known and imminent risk? Are there greater circumstances than others where such a forced evacuation is feasible? If so, what?
1. Unfortunately, the people who failed to leave as requested turned into part of the problem more than part of the solution. I can respect protection of property but at the risk of personal detriment is questionable. I don't think having them leave now will make any difference.
2. I doubt whether you stayed or whether you left and returned, will have any reflection on the amount of benefits that will become available for these people.
3. No effort. In this land of freedom, we cannot be forced to do anything. Besides in a circumstance of known and imminent risk the consequence is death. It becomes a personal decision...one that can not be put into US law.
1) Should the remaining (non-voluntary evacuees) of New Orleans be forced to leave the city?
No they shouldn't be forced to leave except on a case by case basis. If you follow the news carefully, I think you are finding the authorities are already quietly backing away from "everyone has to leave". Why?
1) There are parts of the city that never did flood and aren't flooded now. 2) There are businesses still operating - one woman interviewed in the NY Times said the medical facility she works at (just over the city line in a suburban town) is open. 3) What law or legal precedent gives government the right to order people out of their homes?
Some of you will undoubtedly respond that if a genuine health threat exists government should have the right to force people to flee. But assuming the entire area truly is "toxic" - without some cold hard evidence - does not seem to me to be justification for making Americans leave their homes if they prefer not to. This obsession that "everyone MUST leave NOW!" seems to me to just be a part of the hysteria that has grown up around this entire incident.
(By the way, I'm new here and with limited time to search the archives. Has it been mentioned that martial law has been quietly imposed down there? Does everyone know that? Some very ominous things happening.)
Tommyboyo
No they shouldn't be forced to leave except on a case by case basis. If you follow the news carefully, I think you are finding the authorities are already quietly backing away from "everyone has to leave". Why?
1) There are parts of the city that never did flood and aren't flooded now. 2) There are businesses still operating - one woman interviewed in the NY Times said the medical facility she works at (just over the city line in a suburban town) is open. 3) What law or legal precedent gives government the right to order people out of their homes?
Some of you will undoubtedly respond that if a genuine health threat exists government should have the right to force people to flee. But assuming the entire area truly is "toxic" - without some cold hard evidence - does not seem to me to be justification for making Americans leave their homes if they prefer not to. This obsession that "everyone MUST leave NOW!" seems to me to just be a part of the hysteria that has grown up around this entire incident.
(By the way, I'm new here and with limited time to search the archives. Has it been mentioned that martial law has been quietly imposed down there? Does everyone know that? Some very ominous things happening.)
Tommyboyo
1) Should the remaining (non-voluntary evacuees) of New Orleans be forced to leave the city?
I think now the answer to this question is obvious. They should be forced to leave IF the officials in an area foresee that imminent danger is so likely that to do otherwise would result in loss of life....or as we've seen others having to risk their lives to save people who didn't leave.
2) If they somehow remain behind, do they forfeit any claim to government assistance (health care, supplies, or otherwise) related to Katrina recovery efforts?
I don't think if for some reason a person was still there they shouldn't get help. But everyone with the means should exercise due care and pull themselves away from the wave of harm. Look, they rescue people that go doing things like all this extreme climbing and stuff on mountains even at times when they caution you not to go. So why not provide assistance to the people who also don't exercise good judgement. Stupidity is not yet a precursor for exclusion from help in this country.
3) In a general sense, how much effort should the government spend forcing people to evacuate an area in which there is a known and imminent risk? Are there greater circumstances than others where such a forced evacuation is feasible? If so, what?
MOST of the area was under a voluntary evacuation with strong urging to leave from officials. SOME of the area was not voluntary. I think a lot of people don't realize that. I am against nearly every form of governmental interference in our lives but sometimes...as in this case, I think it's okay to call for a mandatory evacuation to ensure saving lives when people don't heed the warnings and take this seriously.
Everyone I know who did stay for this storm in areas where evacuation was voluntary said..."I will never stay again." That tells you something I think.
I think now the answer to this question is obvious. They should be forced to leave IF the officials in an area foresee that imminent danger is so likely that to do otherwise would result in loss of life....or as we've seen others having to risk their lives to save people who didn't leave.
2) If they somehow remain behind, do they forfeit any claim to government assistance (health care, supplies, or otherwise) related to Katrina recovery efforts?
I don't think if for some reason a person was still there they shouldn't get help. But everyone with the means should exercise due care and pull themselves away from the wave of harm. Look, they rescue people that go doing things like all this extreme climbing and stuff on mountains even at times when they caution you not to go. So why not provide assistance to the people who also don't exercise good judgement. Stupidity is not yet a precursor for exclusion from help in this country.
3) In a general sense, how much effort should the government spend forcing people to evacuate an area in which there is a known and imminent risk? Are there greater circumstances than others where such a forced evacuation is feasible? If so, what?
MOST of the area was under a voluntary evacuation with strong urging to leave from officials. SOME of the area was not voluntary. I think a lot of people don't realize that. I am against nearly every form of governmental interference in our lives but sometimes...as in this case, I think it's okay to call for a mandatory evacuation to ensure saving lives when people don't heed the warnings and take this seriously.
Everyone I know who did stay for this storm in areas where evacuation was voluntary said..."I will never stay again." That tells you something I think.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.