This seems to me to be wildly irresponsible rhetoric coming from Haley Barbour:
Barbour and other officials had a harsh warning for those thinking of looting.
“I’ve urged the highway patrol and national guard to treat looters ruthlessly,” Barbour said, “The rules of engagement will be as ruthless as the law allows.”
I can understand the desire to send a message to possible looters. I really can. I can even recall saying out loud myself that I thought looters should be shot on sight.
But I wasn’t serious, and I wasn’t the Governor of Mississippi, and I damn sure wasn’t about to unleash a bunch of young National Guardsmen on the public with orders to be ‘ruthless.’
Even though Barbour intends for them to act within the law, it seems to me that if you tell a bunch of young heavily armed guys to be ruthless, ruthless is what you will get. That just strikes me as irresponsible.
Am I way off base here? I don’t think I have to go too far back in the history books to find an example of what can happen when undertrained military personnel were given an apparent green light to be as tough as they want with people who were deemed unacceptable. National Guardsmen aren’t police, they aren’t lawyers, and sending this sort of message is going to lead to problems.
jobiuspublius
Very wise, Mr. Cole. He should have said something like: “The police and national guard will be out in force. Increased attention will be paid to looting ….”
ppGaz
I saw Barbour. He seemed a little ….. odd, not his usual self. His “I see dead people” answer was every bit as odd as the cited blurb.
He was definitely in a state.
demimondian
I dunno, John. We do have a history of shooting looters during periods of martial law — and, face it, Mississippi is currently under _de facto_ martial law.
The big difference from the point of view of corruption of otherwise good soldiers is duration and intensity. Abu Ghraib was a prison situation in a hostile environment; this is a crisis situation is a friendly environment. I don’t expect abuses of the same scale and horror.
Ken Hahn
It all depends on what the National Guard was actually ordered to do. So long as the orders and instructions were proper, the public statement should have been as harsh as possible. Looters could be endangering lives at this moment. I hope they’re convinced Barbour means it and scared enough to think twice.
No one in the Guard will pay any attention to the press conference. They’ll get their orders from their officers, not off the tube.
SeesThroughIt
Holy crap, John, did you really quote NWA (well, technically MC Ren performing on Eazy-E’s album) for the title of this post? I didn’t know you were into classic gangsta rap like that.
KC
I’m sort of mixed about the whole thing. I heard Barbour on CNN, he definitely seemed in a “state” as ppGaz put it. Then I saw him later on O’Reilly. He definitely seemed to have calmed down a little by then. He was still insisting looters would be treated harshly though.
I can understand his sentiments, I’d probably feel the same way if I were governor in that situation. On the other hand, seeing some of the images I saw on CNN, it made me wonder, would someone who breaks into a grocery store for fresh water be treated roughly? Would someone get roughed up for trying to get some food out of a convenience store?
eileen from OH
There are looters and there are looters. The natural (and historic) response is to shoot looters on sight. No trial, no jury, no judge. While this kind of hardline attitude may discourage looting it also forces National Guardsman to play judge, jury, and executioner.
Being a resident of Kent, OH and old enough to remember the shootings, this reminds me of that. As far as the KSU shooting were concerned, there was more than enough blame to go around. But most of that had to land at the feet of Gov. Rhodes who took his hardline orders from a Nixon White House and who placed woefully overtired and overstressed National Guardsmen in an impossible situation.
Likewise, a “shoot to kill” order for looters in Louisiana is putting the National Guard in the position of having to make split-second decisions in a emergency.
Is it okay to shoot a looter who steals a t.v. from a shop window? Is that a capital crime? What if the looter is going after food and water for his family? Is THAT a capital crime.
It’s incredibly unfair for the Louisiana National Guard to be forced to have to make these kinds of judgments. They have enough on their plate (not to mention being short 4,000 members and a helluva lot of equipment, currently in Iraq.)
Okay, okay, I had to slip that in. But it IS relevant to what’s happening in LA.
M. Scott Eiland
An unequivocal announcment would be the best approach: “Looters will be shot on sight.” It worked rather well during the aftermath of the great San Francisco Quake of 1906–only nine looters had to be shot.
DANEgerus
Well “shoot ’em” yeah… just don’t shoot them ruthlessly.
;)
space
Obviously, nobody like looters. But let’s be honest. Compared to the massive destruction wrought by the hurricane, looting is an insignificant problem.
It strikes me that Barbour is asking for trouble here. It doesn’t take much imagination to see the potential for a London subway shooting type event. You’ve got thousands of people stranded without water, food, dry clothing, and power. Do you really want to risk unjustifiably hurting or killing someone who has gone without drinking water for 36 hours in order to keep someone from runing off with granny’s flat-screen?
Mike S
OT, but the funniest thing I’ve read in ages.
Oberon
John,
You are such a bleeding heart liberal.
jobiuspublius
Shooting me softly with his gun
Shooting me softly
with his gun
………
jobiuspublius
Mike S, that is precious. Thank you thank you, you’ve made my day. :)
Another Jeff
I’m inclined to agree with KC (I’m not positive if i agree with the Sunshine Band, though).
Granted, I’m not the Governor and I’m not the National Guard, and I understand why he can’t come out and say this, but there’s a difference between people “looting” a convenience store because they have no healthy food or clean water, and people looting because they’re looking for a free TV.
This isn’t the LA riots where a bunch of cretins wanted to stock up on all the free shit they could get their hands on. These are people that, in a lot of cases, need this stuff to survive.
Demdude
Humantiy is not Haley Barbour’s strong suit.
Here.
jobiuspublius
All this focus on looters is so retarded. People are dieing. Infrastructure is falling apart. But, we must save the trinkets.
jobiuspublius
Oh, O’Reilly ….
jobiuspublius
I’ve heard stories of the weakening of laws that protect us versus the military operating at home. Looters, O’Reilly, martial law, red alert, bye bye democracy and civil rights ….
Joe Albanese
I agree completely with John on this one. Having been a law enforcement officer for over 20 years, the Governor’s statement is one of the most irresponsible statements I have ever heard in such a circumstance. National Guardsman are NOT police officers. They do not have the training and experience to deal with these issues so naturally what the Governor says is going to have an inordinate influence on them.
I am no bleeding heart liberal (Its hard being a cop and being a bleeding heart liberal at the same time) but to tell your untrained National Guard to be “ruthless” against their fellow citizens, looters or not, is very unwise.
Luddite
BAGHDAD – Iraq’s parliament proposed a law on Monday to sack members of the National Assembly who repeatedly failed to turn up for work—but the decision was put on hold because too many were absent to hold a vote.
Nice to know the Iraqis have warmly embraced the idea of “manana”
jobiuspublius
It would be very enlightening to see military and police personnel offer their interpretation of ruthless.
Joe Albanese
jobiuspublius asked:
Thats the problem isnt’ it? How is a young National Guardsman supposed to interpet “ruthless”. Ruthless to one might be to try and arrest anyone looting. Ruthless to another might mean to add a little extra legal punishment like a beating and yet a third may think being ruthless means shooting anyone looting even if its a 13 year old stealing video games.
What does Webster think ruthless means:
Is that how the governor wants his law enforcment to behave? as monsters of remorseless cruelty?
We try to teach law enforcment officers to REMOVE emotion from their offical actions. To do their job as mandated by state law and constitutional protections. In other words to carry out their duties as professionals. Guess, I’m just old school..
jobiuspublius
If that’s old school then old school is what we need. I used to think it was plaid shorts, but, I greatfully stand corrected. :)
Scott Chaffin
Well, what Barbour said seems to have scared King Tut-Tut, so it’s a fair bet that the message reached at least some of the intended recipients, too.
Which, um, was NOT the Mississippi National Guard, as has been already pointed out.
(Nor was it the Louisiana National Guard, which is from the state next to MS and likely tied down with their own set of problems.)
John Cole
He didn’t scare me, you first rate jackass. I thought it might be taken as an inappropriate go ahead for behavior even ‘real mensch’ like you wouldn’t condone.
Randolph Fritz
Same kind of orders that gave us Abu Ghraib. It is horrible and unsurprising.
capelza
Wow…Barbour is definitely not one of my favourite politicians, but I didn’t take what he said as all that bad. He sounded like a man you was devastated by what happened to his state.
In retrospect, I can see what you are saying, just didn’t hear it in such a dangerous light at the time.
Davebo
What are the odds of any potential looters would have even heard the statement?
Sitting in the dark and all..
Joe Albanese
Scott said;
intended recipients? you mean the looters that have no electricity? more likely the only relavent parties that heard his comments are the – National Guard and law enformcent. Ve
Joe Albanese
Eileen says the following nonsense:
Not in my neck of the woods.
ET
I don’t know if I would shoot looters (now price gougers ;) ) but I think putting them in stock in a public place and stoning them isn’t a bad plan. Subjecting them to the taunts and shots of others might be a way to if not shame them (cause if they are looting the likley have no shame to discover) at least give the frustrated law abiding citizens a way of burning off some excess energy.
jobiuspublius
I find it hard to joke about the looters. This could be the worst smoke screen yet.
es
Sheesh, what’s Barbour’s problem, freedom is messy.
Nash
Sounds like Donald Rumsfeld has become Gov. of Miss.
“Goly Gee Whilikers! Those looters who were shot on sight were killed by a few bad apples. There was no sanctioning of violence by this state administration and any suggestion to the contrary is irresponsible.”
Scott Chaffin
You are all aware of those modern marvels, battery-powered radios, right?
Reid
Nash, Rumsfeld saw looting as just a messy symptom of freedom. He never ordered a finger to be lifted to stop it in Baghdad.
Worked out real well there, too, didn’t it?
In New Orleans, CNN is reporting that homeless victims who went to the “high ground” of I-10 in their cars are now having them stolen. Just let it continue, right?
I agree, all efforts should be towards saving those at risk. But those plundering the victims would get not a shred of sympathy from me if they got a bullet in exchange for their ghoulishness.
vinc
I wonder to what extent looters are actually doing a public service, by rescuing goods from the floodwaters that would otherwise be completely ruined.
Big E
so….you find yourself in the middle of a disaster, without food or water, don’t have any information aka radio with batteries, on your own, and you come across a store that has food, ‘liberating’/’borrowing’/’looting’ some
food to save your life and possibly your family
is wrong?
Shooting hungry people? That’s a good christian republican
for ya.
Reid
Big E, you’re right about that guy grabbing food for his family. But what about the folks who’ve beseiged a Children’s Hospital in New Orleans, or those who reportedly shot up a police precinct house in New Orleans with AK-47’s?
A disaster may excuse you from doing what you need to survive, but we’re seeing a lot more than that.
“Shooting hungry people? That’s a good christian republican for ya”
Is there no human tragedy so large it cannot be lifted and spun for someone’s partisan intent, right or left? Don’t answer, I already know…
Shygetz
When the governor comes up and says that looters should be treated ruthlessly without making any distinctions between people trying to get food for their family and people trying to make off with some cool stuff, then that is a cause for complaint. John was right on target with this one.
goonie bird
Just wait for the liberals to start whining about arresting looters but of course they arrest looters the looters and stealing other peoples belongings and thats why they should be arrested
Big E
Reid:
Your right that there is a difference between ‘looting’ for survival matters and taking advantage of a disaster in order to steal.
Thats’ what makes Barbour’s initial comments so disturbing. His making comments without really thinking through what he is saying is dangerous. In dangerous times and terrible events, political leaders must think clearly, offer solutions and not make the situation worse.
Something like this gives one pause to consider what would actually happen in the event of a terrorist WMD attack. I am not at ease with the government response based on what I see in the hurricane affected areas even with years of planning and advanced warnings.
re: my tounge in cheek statement about a ‘christian republican’ shooting the looters…
In my opinion there are a large numbers of evangelical christians, who also tend to be republican who see the world in black and white, no grey areas to be considered, things are either right or wrong. Reality rarely fits into such rigid lines of thinking. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell both said [paraphrasing here] that the September 11 attacks were god’s way of taking revenge on sinners, liberals, feminists, gays etc. I’ll assume that we all consider that way of thinking bordering on the insane. I trust we will not hear them making similar comments of god’s need for revenge on the innocent in the hurricane region. OK…maybe more of this discussion later on in another thread.
This brings us back to Barbour’s comments about ‘rules of engagement will be as ruthless as the law allows’. If your in charge, you must think in more than ‘black and white’ terms before you speak. His comments imply everyone will be dealt with the same way regardless of the reason and might even incite others to acts of violence.
dundeels
I’m sure that no one would advocate shooting people that are taking the bare essentials of survival. However, by doing nothing to stop the looting, the government is compounding the suffering and loss of everyone in the area. Once the Walmarts and local stores are empty, the looting will spread to the ruins of homes and devastated communities. Consider the tens of thousands that wisely chose to evacuate their homes in the area at the governments urging, only to find out that they can not return and that looters are taking the few, if any, belongings that they have left. If the government does nothing to stop the looting during this disaster, many thousands of Americans may choose not to evacuate in the face of the next impending disaster. This could cause many people to needlessly loose their lives trying to protect their belongings because their government has turned a blind eye to looting and crime on the streets.
Nero
If you are stealing something dumb (George Forman grill, microwave, plasma tv) you should be beaten because not only are you a thief but you are also dumb. If you are stealing food, water and propane grills you should be left alone. Looting is not a big economic problem as most of the stores should have disaster insurance. Now certainly some mom & pop stores are going to loss all their inventory but if they don’t have insurance their business was doomed even before the looting started. The problem with looting (or price gouging for that matter)is not that it occurs but that we spend resources combating it. Let the idiots run wild so you can concentrate on evacuating the city.
Plus if I see you with a big screen I am not picking you ass up. Your want survival of the fittest – then you better be able to swim.
notamerican
So unsophisticated and crude, like the majority of people who voted for this senator?
you get what you pay for.