Katrina: Why aren’t we talking about Criminal Negligence?

Katrina: Why aren’t we talking about Criminal Negligence? By Mike Wwhitney 03/03/06 "ICH" -- -- "I have kind a sinking feeling in my gut right now... You know, from this tape it looks like everybody was fully aware." New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin It is clear now that Michael Chertoff and George Bush can be directly implicated in the deaths of the 1,300 Americans who died in Hurricane Katrina. The newly released video from the Associated Press proves beyond a reasonable doubt that they were adequately warned of the gravity of the approaching storm and the risks it posed to people of New Orleans. The only question now is whether the charges should be criminal negligence or manslaughter. We leave that to the attorneys. As the video shows ( http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12132.htm ) both Bush and his Homeland Security chief were told by federal disaster officials in unambiguous language “that the storm could breach levees and overwhelm rescuers”. What could be clearer than that? Bush’s comments three days later that, “I don’t think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees”, was obviously meant to mislead the public and redirect the blame away from himself. For some unknown reason, Bush and his lieutenants ignored the warnings of the Hurricane experts and stubbornly refused to take timely action that would have saved lives. Even when Chertoff was notified that the levees had been breached, he failed to respond until hours later. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12166.htm

Comments

Hard to prove.

Submitted by bass on March 8, 2006 - 10:56am.

The reason no one is talking about negligence is it's
too hard to prove. How can you prove the government,
federal, state or local, should have anticipated the
damage Katrina would cause? That there would be the degree
of levee damage there was? We can all say they SHOULD
have known, but that doesn't prove negligence.

AP Retraction

Submitted by Dark Horse on March 6, 2006 - 4:31pm.

News
AP usage of 'breach' was wrong
The Associated Press
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 03.04.2006

WASHINGTON — An Associated Press story Thursday on this page incorrectly reported that federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees in New Orleans, citing confidential video footage of an Aug. 28 briefing among U.S. officials.
The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaching.
The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun.
The day before the storm hit, Bush was told there were grave concerns that the levees could be overrun. It wasn't until the next morning, as the storm was hitting, that Michael Brown, then head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said Bush had inquired about reports of breaches.
http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/118569.php

dh

The obvious is always obvious; and, nothing is ever as it appears.

Breach retraction?

Submitted by iconoclast 555 on March 13, 2006 - 4:00am.

It would seem that you don't follow the spin analysis too much. It's a bit of a non-sequitor - and a lot of a twig for admin supporters to cling to.

Interesting how the major

Submitted by jupiter on March 12, 2006 - 12:12pm.

Interesting how the major network t.v. shows have changed their 60 Minutes type shows (whatever those types of shows are called --- "news magazines," I guess) into hour-long "whodunits" --- the implications usually being as if the terrible criminals might be our very own neighbors and such, because someone disappeared or was found murdered, or the like.

Obviously this can sometimes be true, but they hash and rehash the evidence and purported evidence, as if to galvanize and channel maybe not the rage, but the TIME of the public --- people who generally are very busy to begin with.*

Multiply one hour of distracted attention by the number of people watching, and how many lifetimes would that equal, of time preoccupation? (Not to imply that is necessarily in all ways "equal" to the taking of a particular human life, because people do choose for whatever reasons to watch these shows.)

Anyway what about the MASS murders (a.k.a. holocausts) that occur when a corporation pollutes the air, or when an organization supported by tax-payer money such as FEMA to protect the people during a disaster, are misused and the funds diverted to different purposes? Just because these subtle deaths occur quietly and on a less obvious scale --- well does that make them less significant than a disaster that suddenly takes a hundred or so lives? (And cannot escape getting our attention?)

The lack of attention given to these mass murders is as if to underscore the insignificance of the individual. Meanwhile, a seeming counter side is the marketing attempt to prey upon the public with bait of making oneself "significant" or more significant, via worshipping their products and all. They underscore to us things, as if to say:

"Genius is dangerous!" and "Mediocrity is safe!" As we become more and more like a dog-breed, bred by them and their conditioning of us and all.

--------------------
*(And this is not to mention how it is turning out to be that those imprisoned have often been turning out to have been innocent, but wrongfully accused or framed.)

Meanwhile --- the media must be thanked for the number of times it has exposed an innocent person who was wrongfully accused or framed.