From IAEM Board....

- - -

I have been fortunate to receive quite a bit of back door information coming of
Katrina related activities - all on condition that the information remain
confidential.

The most detailed and articulate observer has given me permission to share his
work with the IAEM list on condition of anonymity. He is an experienced
professional who has been involved in crisis situations for many years. He is
hands on practical, not academic theoretical. This is his fourth message on this
topic. If the list is interested, I will also post some of his other
observations.

- - -

Over the past couple of weeks, I've been watching closely as the whole
evacuation and rescue drama has played out, and have been very active in the
relief process, learning all I can for future reference. There are some broader
issues that might not come to mind at first thought, but which are directly
relevant to our own safety, security, and peaceful possession of our homes. Some
of these have been mentioned in earlier e-mails, but they bear repeating in the
light of the number of incidents of which I've heard.

1. If you choose to help, you may be sucked into a bureaucratic and legal
nightmare. Example: a local church, in the beginning stages of the crisis,
offered its hall to house evacuees. Local and State officials promptly filled it
up with over 100 people. Their "social skills" proved extremely difficult to
live with... toilets were blocked, restrooms left filthy, graffiti were scrawled
and/or carved on the walls, arguments and disputes were frequent (often
escalating to screaming matches, sometimes to physical violence), evacuees
roamed the neighborhood (leading to all sorts of reports of petty theft,
vandalism, etc.), church workers were subject to aggressive begging and demands,
etc. Requests to the authorities to provide better security, administrative
assistance, etc. apparently fell on deaf ears - the crisis was so widespread and
overwhelming that a small facility such as this seems to have been very low on
the priority checklist. After two days of this, with complaints from the
neighbors becoming more and more insistent, the church informed local officials
that it wanted the evacuees removed at once, if not sooner. They were promptly
subject to bureaucratic heavy-handedness (including threats to withhold
previously-promised

reimbursement for their expenses); threats of lawsuits for daring to

insinuate that the evacuees were somehow "lower-class" in their conduct, and for
alleged racism, slander, and general political incorrectness; and threats of
negative publicity, in that officials threatened to put out a press release
denouncing the church for its "elitist" and "un-co-operative"

attitude in a time of crisis. The church initially caved in to this pressure,
and allowed the evacuees to stay: but within a couple more days, the pressure
from neighbors and from its own members became impossible to bear, and they
insisted on the evacuees being removed to a Red Cross shelter. I'm informed that
repairs to their hall will cost over $10,000.

This is only one example among many I could cite, but it makes the point clear -
if you offer your facilities to authorities, you place yourself (to a certain
extent) under their control, and you're potentially liable to a great deal of
heavy-handed, insensitive bureaucratic bullying. Those of you in the same
position as this church (i.e. with facilities you could make

available) might wish to take note.

2. Law enforcement problems will often be "glossed over" and/or ignored by
authorities. In many cities housing evacuees, there have been private reports of
a significant increase in crime caused by their presence: but you'll find that
virtually all law enforcement authorities publicly deny this and/or gloss over
it as a "temporary problem". This is all very well for publicity, but it ignores
the increased risk to local residents. I've been tracking crime reports in about
a dozen cities, through my contacts with local law enforcement and the Louisiana
State Police. All the LEO's I speak with, without exception, tell me of greatly
increased crime, including rape, assault, robbery, shoplifting, vandalism, gang
activity, etc.

However, you won't see these reports in the news media, and will often see
senior LE figures actively denying it. The officers with whom I speak are angry
and bitter about this, but they daren't "go public", as their jobs would be on
the line if they did so. They tell me that often they're instructed not to
report certain categories of "incident" at all, so as not to "skew" or "inflate"
the "official" crime figures. I've also heard reports from Texas, Alabama and
Tennessee of brand-new high-end motor vehicles (e.g. Cadillacs, Lincolns, BMW's,
etc.) with New Orleans dealer tags being driven through various towns, on their
way North and West. The drivers were described as "gang-bangers" (and sundry
less complimentary terms). However, there have been no reports of stolen
vehicles from New Orleans, because there are no workers to check out dealer
lots, or report thefts, and no working computers to enter VIN's, etc. into the
NICS database of stolen vehicles - so officers have had no
choice but to let these vehicles proceed. Draw your own conclusions.

3. Your personal and/or corporate supplies and facilities may be commandeered
without warning, receipt or compensation. I've had numerous reports from in and
near the disaster zone of individuals (e.g. boat-owners, farmers with barns,
tractors, etc.) and corporate groups (e.g. companies with heavy equipment,
churches with halls, etc.) finding an official on their doorstep demanding the
use of their facilities or equipment. If they demurred, they were told that this
was an "emergency situation" and that their assistance was being required, not
requested. Some of them have lost track of the heavy equipment "borrowed" in
this way, and don't know where it is, whether or not it's still in good
condition, and when (if ever) it will be returned - and in the meantime, they
can't continue their normal operations without this equipment. Others have had
their land and facilities effectively confiscated for use by rescue and relief
workers, storage of supplies, etc. In some cases, in the absence
of their owners, the property of the individuals and groups concerned (e.g.
farm gasoline and diesel supplies, the inventory of motor vehicle dealers,
suppliers of foodstuffs, tarpaulins, etc.) have been commandeered and used by
law enforcement and relief workers, without permission, receipts, reimbursement,
etc. Protests have been met with denials, threats of arrest, insinuations of
being "uncaring" and "un-co-operative", etc. Lesson learned: if you've got what
officials need in a time of crisis, forget about Constitutional protections of
your property! Sure, you can sue after the fact, but if you need your goods and
facilities for your own survival, you're basically SOL.

Those of us who stockpile necessities for potential crises like this might want
to consider concealing our stockpiles to prevent confiscation: and if you need
certain equipment for your own day-to-day use (e.g. tractors for farmers,
generators, etc.), you might have a hard time retaining possession of these
things. This problem applies to relief workers also: I've had several reports of
private relief workers (e.g. those sent in by churches,

etc.) having their vehicles and supplies commandeered by "official" relief
workers, without compensation or receipt, and being kicked out of the disaster
area with warnings not to return. The fact that the "private"

workers were accomplishing rather more than the "official" workers was
apparently of no importance.

4. If you look like you know what you're doing, you may be a target of those
less prepared. There have been many, many reports of individuals who were more
or less prepared for a disaster being preyed upon by those who were not
prepared. Incidents range from theft of supplies, through attempts to bug out
with these persons (uninvited), to actual violence. It's genuinely frightening
to hear about these incidents, particularly the attitude of those trying to prey
on the prepared: they seemed to feel that because you'd taken steps to protect
yourself and your loved ones, you had somehow done so at their expense, and they
were therefore "entitled" to take from you what they needed. There's no logical
explanation for this attitude, unless it's bred by the utter dependence of many
such people on the State for welfare, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, etc.
Since they've always been dependent on others, and regarded this as an
"entitlement", in a disaster situation, they seem to
automatically assume that they're "entitled" to what you've got! In one case,
the family's pet dog was held hostage, with a knife at its throat, until the
family handed over money and supplies. In two cases, families were threatened
with the rape of their women unless they co-operated with the aggressors. In
four cases that I know of, children were held hostage to ensure co-operation.

There have also been reports of crimes during the bug-out process. Families
sleeping in their cars at highway rest areas were a favorite target, including
siphoning of gas from their tanks, assaults, etc. The lessons to be learned from
this are obvious. One family can't secure itself against these threats without
great difficulty. It's best to be "teamed up" with neighbors to secure your
neighborhood as a whole, rather than be the one house with facilities in an area
filled with those less prepared. If you're in the latter situation, staying put
may not be a safe option, and a bug-out plan may be vital. When bugging out,
you're still not safe from harm, and must maintain constant vigilance.

5. Those who thought themselves safe from the disaster were often not safe from
refugees. There have been many reports of smaller towns, farms, etc.

on the fringe of the disaster area being overrun with those seeking assistance.
In many cases, assistance was demanded rather than requested, and theft, looting
and vandalism have been reported. So, even if you think you're safe from the
disaster, you may not be safe from its aftermath.

6. Self-reliance seems to draw suspicion upon you from the authorities.

I've mentioned this in a previous e-mail, but I've had many more reports of it
from those who survived or bugged out, and it bears re-emphasizing. For reasons
unknown and unfathomable, rescue authorities seem to regard with suspicion those
who've made provision for their safety and have survived (or bugged out) in good
shape. It seems to be a combination of "How could you cope when so many others
haven't?", "You must have taken advantage of others to be so well off", and
"We've come all this way to help, so how dare you not need our assistance?" I
have no idea why this should be the case...

but there have been enough reports of it that it seems to be a widespread
problem. Any ideas from readers?

7. Relief workers from other regions and States often don't know local laws.
This is a particular problem when it comes to firearms. I've had many reports of
law enforcement officers sent to assist in Louisiana from States such as New
Jersey, California, etc. trying to confiscate firearms on the streets, etc.,
when in fact the armed citizens were legally armed, under local law. One can't
reason with these officers in the heat of the moment, of course, and as a
result, a number of people lost their firearms, and have still not recovered
them (and in the chaos of the immediate post-disaster situation, they may never
do so, because I'm not sure that normal procedures such as logging these guns
into a property office, etc. were followed). I understand that in due course,
steps were taken to include at least one local law enforcement officer in
patrols, so that he could advise officers from other areas as to what was legal,
and what wasn't. Also, in Louisiana, law enforcement is conducted
differently than in some other States, and officers from other States who came
to assist were sometimes found to be domineering and aggressive in enforcing a
law enforcement "authority" that doesn't normally apply here. So, if you're in a
disaster area and help arrives from elsewhere, you may find that the help
doesn't know (or care) about local laws, norms, etc. Use caution!

8. Relief organizations have their own bureaucratic requirements that may
conflict with your needs. A good example is the Red Cross. In many cases, across
three States, I've had reports that locals who needed assistance were told that
they had to register at a particular Red Cross shelter or facility. The help
would not come to them: they had to go to it. If they wished to stay on their
own property, they were sometimes denied assistance, and told that if they
wanted help, they had to move into the shelter to get it. Also, assistance was
often provided only to those who came in person.

If you left your family at home and went to get food aid, you might be denied
aid for your whole family because there was no evidence that they existed - only
the number that could be physically counted by relief workers (who would not
come to you, but insisted you come to them) would be provided with food.
Needless to say, this caused much anger and resentment.

I hope that these "lessons learned" are of use to you. I'm more and more
convinced that in the event of a disaster, I must rely on myself, and a few
friends, and never count on Government or relief organizations for the help I'll
need. Also, I'm determined to bug out for a fairly long distance from a disaster
in my home area, so as to be clear of the post-disaster complications that may
arise. Once again (as it has countless times throughout history), we see that to
rely on others (let alone Government) for your own safety and security is to
invite complications at best, disaster at worst.



Be well, stay safe.
Charles

C. S. Thomas
Managing Director
CACH International Ltd Co



---------------------------------
Yahoo! for Good
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]