Talk:Federal Emergency Management Agency

FYI: the FEMA logo will soon be retired. You can already see the new Department of Homeland Security logo on the FEMA website. SeanO 14:40, Aug 23, 2003 (UTC)

Are you guys aware that there appears to be a typo in two places at the start of article where it talks about porn??

Should there be a note on the role of FEMA in the conspiracy computer game Deus Ex? I don't think it's relevant, but it's an interesting tidbit of info nevertheless. -Ashmodai

I think FEMA's reputed role in various conspiracy theories is relevant, but it will be a _huge_ article if we list every single theory... :-) --SeanO 11:18, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

Bias removed

I have removed this statement from the Response to Major Disasters section: 'Notice no mention of January 1993 - January 2001 disaster criticisms. FEMA under President Clinton was a cabinet level position and was often praised on how they used this power.' There were criticisms during this time (as noted later in the article) and it feels very political. DiegoTehMexican 22:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Shadow goverment

Why? Apperently it has the power to dissolve congress and take over all administration, could someone with a bit more clue on US law give more insight on this? -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 12:03, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)

Well Ævar, I know a bit about this, so I guess ill answer your question. They can't dissolve congress, though congress can't review its actions for six months in a national emergency, but thats it. Like usual, a 2/3rds majority in the Senate can override any Executive Order, like the one that Truman tried to pass to nationalize all American steel mills and the one that Clinton tried to prevent corporations from using scabs to break strikes.

People say FEMA is set up to be a shadow government because it has powers that it inherited from various other agencies and offices before its formation that would allow it to take over some important aspects of the US government in a massive "National Emergency" that would threaten the collapse of the US government, thats the only instance where any of the powers would be used unless it was mission critical, like nationalizing an Airport temporarily, or relocating people from a contaminated area to a non-contaminated one. Now mind you the conspiracy buffs will say that they can do whatever they want whenever they want and will point out that "National Emergency" is only clearly defined in the War and Emergency Powers act of 1931. The part about the unlimited authority simply isnt true. In a non-affected area everything would operate as normal. It would just be in areas that are devastated enough to warrant use of those powers.

Anyway, here's a list of pretty much every executive order that pretains to FEMA:

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12148 created the Federal Emergency Management Agency that is to interface with the Department of Defense for civil defense planning and funding. An "emergency czar" was appointed. FEMA has only spent about 6 percent of its budget on national emergencies.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned if contaminated beyond reasonable means of decontamination, and establish new locations for populations.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has broad powers in every aspect of the nation.

You may want to note that most of these EO's were written by Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter before FEMA even existed. FEMA isnt a shadow government in the true sense of the word, though they do have some functionality as such with Continuity of Operations planning, but its really just a tool to get things consolidated and up and running again after a major catastrophe.

Hope that clears things up a bit.

Scuzz138 23:55, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Scuzz I hate to be just another conspiracy buff, but it seems like everything you said after introducing us [conspiracy theorists] supports what we have been saying all along. The executive orders obviously give FEMA sweeping powers over all aspects of our lives. You rightfully mention that FEMA would assume power in a "massive" national emergency that threatens the collapse of the U.S. government, but go on to say that FEMA powers would be local to the disaster. My point of contention is that in a massive national emergency that really threatens state power, it would be up to the state to decide which regions not to enact a FEMA police state in. If a national emergency is massive enough to be country wide, FEMA would have emergency powers for the whole country. You mention the ambiguity of the term national emergency: I'd like to point out that civil unrest and widespread revolt/revolution is one scenario that has gotten a lot of attention by the state, and FEMA has contengency plans to deal with such a scenario. This isn't so much of a conspiracy theory when looked at in the context of what a real "national emergency" scenario might look like in this day in age. We arn't talking about an isolated event like hurricane Katrina. How about large scale economic collapse coupled with radical political agitation? (IMHO) FEMA is not benevelont in any scenario, and it would be downright dangerous in this one.

Fight the future!

In Europe it is widely believed the President of US could cede all his powers to the FEMA in case of a big disaster (or a faked, conspiracy disaster) and then FEMA becomes the only executive, legilative and judicary authority in the USA. This means the Constituation is void as long as the FEMA is in power and e.g. if LA and SF are totally destroyed by a scale 8.5 earthquake they can e.g. force religious mid-west farmers to accept homeless refuge drug abuser gay couples in their houses without any kind of compensation.

And you got this information where? --Mrrightguy10 03:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It's just another person espousing the supposed shadow government function of FEMA. The president does not have the power to cede his power to anybody other than the vice-president or Speaker of the House, as stated in the Constitution. --DiegoTehMexican 14:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

FEMA Individual Assistance

>>In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, it is unclear whether FEMA will provide government funds to rebuild destroyed homes in New Orleans

This is a little strong. FEMA is ruled by the Stafford Act, which does provide government funds to individuals. The Individual Assistance program provides for:

• Limited housing repair funding (currently capped by law),
• Temporary housing assistance (either indirect, such as rental assistance, or direct, such as loaning travel trailers or establishing trailer parks), and
• and low-interest loans for individuals and businesses (through the Small Business Administration).

There is no duplication of benefits. If your insurance company pays to repair your house, you don't get money to repair your house from FEMA (but you are eligible for housing assistance and low-interest loans).

So, FEMA will provide government funds to rebuild. However, it will not be enough to get every family back on a pre-disaster footing. -- SeanO 22:57, August 31, 2005 (UTC).

FEMA < Homeland Sec causes problems

In the wake of Katrina, some have criticized that FEMA is less autonomous, and therefor less able to act in a crisis. Does this issue belong in Wikipedia? Does anybody know more and want to add it in a NPOV way? Smmurphy 01:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I would wait to see if it pans out. FEMA has suffered from it's subjugation to DHS, but Secretary Chertoff has made it clear that Emergency Response and Recovery is FEMA's job. -- SeanO 03:51, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't mean "no coverage of contreversial subjects". It means, in this case, that balance be applied to the coverage of relevant facts, as long as they are noteable and sourced. So, if you have good references, go for it! --NightMonkey 09:14, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I came to this page specifically hoping to find some information on the controversy regarding whether FEMA has been rendered less-capable by the policies of the Bush administration. I'm not expecting to find partisan mud-slinging. But a nice NPOV characterization of the controversy, with relevant links, would be helpful. -- John Callender 22:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it probably has been, but without authoritative sourcing for that argument I don't think it belongs on the page. If someone can provide some sourcing, I will happily write something up. And the particular question of whether & how it has been rendered less effective in the specific response to Katrina isn't one that can really be answered yet. The situation isn't over and the enquiries haven't happened. It might be obvious that the DHS takeover had some effect (certainly feels that way to me) but right now it's simply not possible to state that as a sourced fact or opinion. Cromis 22:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I have seen a lot of articles in the mainstream media about whether putting FEMA under the DHS was a good thing to do. For instance, see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/29/AR2005082901445.html?sub=AR Of course, the Libertarians and various other limited-government types say the organizational details are irrelevant, since there doesn't seem to be any provision in the U.S. Constitution authorizing FEMA's activities. Thus, they say the whole thing should be abolished outright, and its functions carried out by either the states or the private sector (see http://www.jimbovard.com/American%20Spectator%20Sept%2096%20FEMA%20Money%20Come%20and%20Get%20It.htm ). 24.54.208.177 04:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

One problem with the 'limited government argument' is that we've seen that in this case, Local and State Government (and even the civilian Federal government) were uncapable of handling the disaster at first. As far as disaster relief goes: you get what you pay for. DHS continues to affect the staffing and funding of FEMA. Michael Chertoff's Second Stage Review (which he proposed earlier this summer) will remove FEMA "Preparedness Division" to a newly formed ("Preparedness Directorate" of DHS). Dozens of skilled Emergency Managers will be siphoned off from FEMA to work a DHS mission which is more removed from State and Local government. In my opinion: FEMA succeeds when it works well with the State and Local government. It fails when it doesn't. [Disclaimer: I'm a FEMA Employee, but this is my opinion] --SeanO 01:53, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Article

I thought I'd just put this article here for someone to work with. I found it an interesting read, and think it's pretty much encapsulated most of the complaints about FEMA. Sadly, it was written almost a year ago. http://www.bestofneworleans.com/dispatch/2004-09-28/cover_story.html

External Link

• FEMA at Sourcewatch

I've verified some of this and added it to James Lee Witt; but some of that should be here too, and there's more to be said about the general politicisation issue. Rd232 08:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Disputed Neutrality?

I removed the NPOV note in the Criticisms section, as it does not contain anything that can be reasonably construed as controversial. It simply states some widely publicized criticisms and does not defend them. Subversive 07:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm putting it back at the head of the article; this article has slowly deteriorated into a *real* mess. I'll try to put some time into cleaning it up this week, but I could use some help.
--24.129.168.240 21:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

FEMA Heads Succession Boxes

How should we handle succession boxes for FEMA heads? Do we include interim or acting FEMA Directors? My first inclination is no, but there are some cases (Magaw and Paulison) where they could be listed. -- SeanO 20:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Pro-Bush administration diatribe

I removed the following paragraph at the end of the Katrina section:

Bush took most of the criticism; however, two people to blame. First off many of the people could have been evacuated with city vehicles that are currently underwater. School buses could have been used to take people elsewhere, etc. This implies that the mayor of New Orleans was slacking off just blabbing on the news. He's full of it. Secondly, the governor of of Louisiana is to blame. Before FEMA is allowed to respond, they actually have to be asked to help. The governor was responsible to ask for help. In fact the governor delayed in asking for help and announced that she would wait one more day. The blame of course got directed to President Bush and Brown. Neither are to blame since the the local officials never did their job in the first place. The United States was designed to have a pyramid of officials, therefore, the top officials are not always to blame.

While some of the points may be salient, this paragraph is too biased and needs to be re-written to have a more neutral point of view. I suggest the original contributor figure out a way to re-word it to contain coherent and objective arguments. --Prothonotar 05:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't even believe someone would be so ignorant of the encyclopedic goals of wikipedia and wikipedia's NPOV policy to insert such a diatribe into an article. I mean, usually when something is POV it's unwitting, but this person seems to think wikipedia is a political talk show.--Brentt 12:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Notice drive-by

A NPOV tag was added to this article recently. Howver, there's no mention here of what the specific problems are, or why the editor who placed the tag could not begin to fix the problems. It is considered bad form to just add a NPOV tag without substantive comment, let alone no comment at all. If there is no substantive statements made here about the whys, wheres and hows motivating the NPOV tag's addition, I'll remove the NPOV tag in about 72 hours. Thanks. --NightMonkey 06:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

New sections and reorganization

I have reorganized and added portions to this article. I thought it was pretty fragmented and incomplete before, and given the NPOV tag, it needed some attention. There were some pretty POV comments in there that I removed, so in my humble opinon, its pretty NPOV so I removed the tag. I'm sure someone will disagree with my NPOV assertion, so please...fix it, don't just tag the page. I added a section regarding the history of FEMA to give a more complete background than what was there before. Random facts were strewn all over the page, so I have reorganized them in a way that makes sense. The "Response to major disasters" section I thought was signifigant enough to not combine with "Criticisms." I need to cite a few sources and I'll put some more pictures in later. I hope at least someone out there agrees with the choices I've made. Thanks. Govus 04:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Awesome work. Thanks! Eliot 13:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

FEMA predicting 3 likeliest disasters facing the USA

Is is appropriate to add that FEMA predicted the three likeliest disasters facing the USA in early 2001 ? - terrorist attack on NY, San Francisco earthquake, New Orleans Hurricane. FEMA withdrew the article and the best confirmation I can find is houston chronicle blog which also links to a LA Times article confirming this

Yes. I have a memo here from FEMA's PIO in late 2001 with extensive details of these predictions. You should be able to find something on this on the FEMA site. 63.199.4.144 00:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Civil Defense

The article says DOD took over Civil Defense but then it implied that it was part of FEMA. What is the relationship of FEMA and Civil Defense? --Gbleem 06:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

FEMA, as a result of Carter's 1979 Executive Order, IS responsible for Civil Defense. The function was transferred from DoD to FEMA, not the other way around. When I originally wrote that section, I accidentally switched those around, but have now corrected the error. Sorry about that, and thank you. Govus 01:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

FEMA in fiction

On an episode of The Boondocks, Huey had a line about FEMA being one of the top killers of black people. That would work well for the fiction section. -- LGagnon 06:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Court Order

I added a link to the EDLA court order regarding the deadline for FEMA to stop providing temporary housing assistance. The article as it stood before did not mention the litigation or the order, and merely said that FEMA had set a 2/7/06 deadline, while in fact that deadline was a result of the litigation.

I'm not trying to be POV about this issue, I just think people deserve to know the accurate facts of what happened.

RudolfRadna 23:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

When did it start

After some research I have been unable to find out when FEMA started. Did it start with the congressional act of 1803 or was it a consolidation of other federal response groups? I know it was around in 1906.

if some one could tell me that would be great, thanks

President Carter created FEMA from various Civil Defense agencies in 1980. -- SeanO 02:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow that person was a few decades off.

So...

...who'se got the old FEMA logo now? Mind uploading it for comparison, since the current one is tagged "new", it kindof suggests there should be the old one there for comparison... 68.39.174.238

It used to be up on the site. -- SeanO 23:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Useless politicizing

I removed the following paragraph from the article, because it's obviously anti-FEMA and has no place in the article. It's definitely nowhere near NPOV:

"While most American's believe that $100 billion has been spent on hurricane recovery along the Gulf Coast, the actual number spent on the ground is much less because of the lack of accountability within FEMA. They have spent over $10 billion on themselves, for things like housing, rental cars, and office supplies. In comparison, only $8 billion has been spent on the housing needs of the nearly 400,000 people displaced from their homes. In addition, untold billions have been wasted in inefficient, no-bid contracts and widespread fraud in the individual assistance program. Yet, most American's continue to believe that it is the victims that are too corrupt and inefficient to be trusted with recovery funds." -- BHammond1 07:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Good call, that screed has no place anywhere around here. 68.39.174.238 03:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

conspiracy theory section

as it is right now, i've written every word in that section. obviously i am one who thinks that such a section ought to exist (although i thought it was more appropriate under the critism section, since this is more straight up fact than conjecture), and i encourage more people to follow some of the links provided around to see what they think. what i would hate to see would be for it to be arbitraily deleated. what do you all think?

skeet

Executive Orders

I'm going through all the Exec. Orders mentioned in the Conspiracy Theory section. Many of the ones I've gone through are from the depths of the Cold War (Kennedy Administration) and do not mention FEMA. I'm removing those which do not appear to be tangentially related to FEMA. --SeanO 04:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

i am going through some of the e.o.'s as well, and here is a typical example of what i have found: for executive order 10995, the one relating to control of communications media, the language of the order makes clear the obvious, that in a very confusing way (at least to me when presented in this form of legal-speak) the government has their hands all over communications. but it is vague, and does not mention fema. here is the language for the bill if you want to follow along: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-10995.htm

section 4 reads as follows: SEC. 4. The functions and responsibilities vested in the Director of the Office of Emergency Planning by Executive Order No. 10705 of April 17, 1957, as amended, may be redelegated to the Director of Telecommunications Management Executive Orders No. 10695A of January 16, 1957, and No. 10705, as amended are hereby further amended insofar as they are with the present order. Executive Order No. 10460 of June 16, 1953, is hereby revoked.

instead of trying to figure out what the hell that meant, i focues on the first part, where it mentioned the "responsibilities vested in the director of the office of emergency planning by e.o. 10705," since that seemed likely to lead in the direction of FEMA. so i look that one up, and it's brief description is "Delegations of Certain Authority of the President Relating to Radio Stations and Communications," and it was revoked by e.o. 12046. e.o. 12046 description is "relating to the transfer of tele. com functions" and is amended by e.o. 12148 and 12472.

and here is where it all ties in. from starting at e.o. 10995 i ended up at e.o. 12148, whose description is simply federal emergency management (http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/1979.html#12148) and e.o. 12472, whose description is "assignment of national security and emergency preparedness telecommunications functions." (http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/1984.html#12472)

while both e.o.'s have been further amended, it seems clear to me that fema and other national security agencies have some control over communications media. the extent of their control is not clear, however, and probably wouldn't be to anyone not well versed in this beurocratic/legal document type language. indeed, it warrents further investigation, and i will continue down this particular path at some other time. my guess is that each one of those e.o.'s mentioned has gone through a similar evolution. until someone puts the time into it, i agree that the section could not stand as it was.

skeet

Skeet, thanks for your comment. My problem with the section as written is it tars FEMA with Presidential Executive Orders made 20 years before FEMA existed. I think it's clear that the FCC has some control over the communications media (above and beyond the EO cited) I just don't think an Executive Order signed during the Kennedy Administration is particularly relevant to the FEMA operating today. --SeanO 23:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of section under WP:UCS, and more to come(?)

I was WP:BOLD and used the essay "UCS" to removed the section going off about "FEMA concentration camps". Briefly:

• Such claims are standard conspiracy claims
• Such claims would require enourmous directly related, reputable sourcing. This articel used something reading strongly of original research based on questionable sources.
• Such claims are suspiscious sounding on the surface.

That entire section seems a little like something Lightbringer might dump into Freemasonry. I can understand the need for mentioning the conspiracy thories surrounding it, but that does't mean we need to mention an actual conspiracy theory. Maybe toning it down to something like "In a declared emergency, FEMA could call on a wide range of emergency powers, such as [...] [...]. This fact has been noted by many conspiracy theories" ? 68.39.174.238 04:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Re:FEMA CONCENTRATION CAMPS. Please look up "FEMA Camp footage" on Google Video. Who are these camps for? Are they for American citizens? Is this not shocking and news worthy? Just what was so good about the Nazi concentration camps that FEMA feel the need to replicate them in America? These are serious questions and we scorned the German people for not asking such questions during the Nazi rise to power. What is FEMA's vision?--Showmethedata 14:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Google video, if anything like YouTube, is very likely NOT a reliable source. Something like the NYT, Ch. Tribune, heck even the Arizona Republic would be reputable. I know I'm not alone in wanting to ensure that controversial pages like this don't get flooded with hoaxes, utter nonsense and worse screeds. 68.39.174.238 03:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

any reason why the first paragraph in the section was deleted? it read: "FEMA's annual budget is partially secretive. While it remains unknown what some parts of FEMA's 6.4 billion dollar budget (1) will be spent on (2), forced government disclosures of FEMA's past activities paints a revealing picture. Rex 84, short for Readiness Exercise 1984, was a secret exercise to test governmental response to foreign or domestic disturbances that threatened the continuity of the State. Rex 84 and other tests like it demonstrate that FEMA's role extends far beyond responses to natural disasters or foreign/domestic terrorist attacks, and into the area of policing and undermining popular movements in which governmental authority is threatened. A July 5th, 1987 Miami Herald front page article is credited with bringing some of these secret activities into the open, at least amongst the mainstream media."

nothing in there was origional research. i know because i wrote the section. if you'd take the time to read the miami herald article you'd see much stronger accusations leveled against the agency than i ever put down. rex 84 speaks for itself, as does the need for a secret budget for an agency most assume is only around to help out in times of natural disaster. i'd like to keep that section up until you can provide a reason it shouldn't be.

as for the rest of the piece, when i wrote it it was under the criticism section, as a lot of it is easily verifiable. however, the EO's that were listed turned out to be outdated, were deleated, and someone must have put them up again after that. i traced the evolution of two of the EO's and figured out they exist in the same capacity they were origionally described in, with the addition of 30 years of legal speak thrown into the mix. still, not good enough to be in this article, i agree.

the last paragraph is questionable as well, but i'd like to put forth that if we accept rex 84 as fact, why is it beyond our role here on wikipedia to take that fact to its logical conclusion? the detention camps mentioned in the linked-to webpage are not beyond verification - for instance, camp krome in florida is infamous as the current location of detainment for american citizen jose padilla, an alleged terrorist who has been denied habeas corpus and for three years was held as an "unlawful enemy combatent" with no charges filed against him. it was also the site of temproary detention for over 1,000 arab men following the 9/11 attacks, as reported by the new york times. perhaps there is no place in wikipedia for this sort of piece, but i really don't think it's a stretch by any account - it's [illegal detention] been done to american citizens before, there are well known contengency plans for it to be done (on a large scale) again if need be, we have a general idea of the role fema, the military, and other agencies would play in this situation, but we arn't supposed to mention the connections because there isn't enough evidence??

I have reworked some of the conspiracy section and re-titled it. While it seems that this topic deserves a place in this article, much of the material citied in the previous version is derived from sources whose credibility is arguable. For example, the Miami Herald article linked to in the previous version is unsuitable for use, as it is a reproduction of the article on a personal blog. An (admittedly simple) Google search turned up no suitable alternative. Thus, that section was removed. Much of the wording in the previous version was also POV, in my opinion. Additions to this section should be thought about with care. As mentioned at the top of this page, listing every conspiracy theory would create a huge article. I hope to get some comments on this issue...Govus 00:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

i don't think it was at all necessary to remove the mentioning of the miami herald article, for multiple reasons. although it is indeed quite hard to find a hard copy of the article without paying for it, you can get multiple hits on google by searching the journalist's name (alfonso chardy) and fema in the same search. every site that actually has the full report shows identical versions of the full report. and most convincingly of all in regards to the article's credibility was the video link of jack brooks citing it in a congressional hearing where he is questioning oliver north about his involvement in certain secret exercises. i think that the video is crucial for this section, as it presents these "conspiracies" in the light of actual government proceedings.

also, your insinuation that rex 84 refers to an alleged event, or that fema's involvement in it is disputed, doesn't represent the facts of the matter.

I certainly don't know much of anything about Rex 84, so if calling it an alleged event is out of line, I certainly won't object to any modification on that point. It was difficult to determine the exact nature of the program from the linked article. I removed the mention of the Jack Brooks video purely for aesthetic reasons: I could not make it fit will into the prose of the section; so again, I have no objection to reinserting it. As for the Miami Herald article, I really do think the source should be something other than a reproduction of the article on someone's blog. But since it seems necessary to explain the video, I think an appropriate solution may be to link to the article, but mention that the original article could not be found, just as sort of a disclaimer. I'll leave these changes up to you or someone else to make, since I've already put my two cents in. :) Govus 00:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

you did do a good job editing the overall tone of the section, by the way. i will do my best to fit any corrections into the framework you've provided, but i can't get to it for a few days at least.

Buffalo Snowstorm

Is this really a major disaster? -- KB3JUV

according to FEMA who reccomended it and the president who signed a Major Disaster Declaration, yes. 160.39.113.158 19:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC) prosped

Who is comparing this snowstorm to hurricane Katrina??? This section is unsourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.161.1 (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

answer this question please

why is FEMA sluggish? is it due to government restrictions or what? Pikasneez27 01:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't want you to think you're being ignored, it's just that broad questions like this aren't really the scope of Wikipedia talk pages. Maybe there's a forum on another website you could post your question. On the other hand, this is a common comment so perhaps the article should address this view and do a better job of communicating changes that FEMA officials say have been made or are underway. -- Pesco 21:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Old seal images

There are two images available of the old seal. Neither is ideal, but I think the .jpg is better looking than the .gif on my monitor. Can someone make a .svg? ~ BigrTex 15:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• 
  jpg
• 
  gif

Yes, GIFs scale horribly in most cases, so the .jpg (or a .png version) would be better. I uploaded a separate SVG version though and switched to that. Carl Lindberg 00:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

National Disaster Medical System

As of January 1, 2007 NDMS was moved from FEMA back to the Department of Health and Human Services to its current home in DHHS' Office of Preparedness and Emergency Operations. The article needs to be changed to reflect this move.74.72.216.81 05:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Move to FEMA?

Noone calls it the Federal Emergency Management Agency, it's always FEMA, which is why the article should be named FEMA like NATO, OPEC, etc. --Joffeloff 00:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of MSNBC reference

I have removed the reference to MSNBC in the California 2007 wildfires paragraph. The citation at the end of the paragraph is in part for video evidence that Fox News aired the staged press briefing live. Until someone provides a video link (like the one I did for Fox News) or a link to an article indicating that the fake press conference was aired live on MSNBC, I will keep the MSNBC reference deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconwings1982 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)