On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:04:30 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:52:13 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:41:28 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:51:39 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:

Fred Dehl wrote:
Gene Kearns wrote in
:

If there is any REAL concern with security, why is this being bid
to
any NON American firm?
Would you have preferred it go to HAL?
The answer is simple: protecting our ports should not be something
contracted out. It should be something handled directly by the US
Coast
Guard and the US Border Patrol, and if those organizations need to be
enlarged to handle the job, I know where $2 billion a week can be
found
to pay for it.

You are confusing port operations and port security. Don't feel badly,
many
of you are doing the same thing.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************


Port operations in the hands of the UAE?

Absurd.

Perhaps. But too many are using the term "port security" to imply
something
that's not true.

You keep repeating this idea as if it's some sort of revelation, John. Do
you think there is any way, or no way the operator of the port could have
an
effect on security? Any way? Or no way?


That's not my point. Do you think there is no difference between port
security and port operations? If not, use the terms interchangeably.

There is a difference. Operations are handled by the owner or lessor.
Security is handled by government agencies (so far). Now that we've
established that, do you thing there is any way, or no way the operator
could negatively affect security procedures?


Not if the port security folks are properly doing their jobs.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************