When did Taxi drivers start dealing with national security efforts?

Joe

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:56:58 GMT, "Bob Crantz"
said:

Just as the US didn't want Communists running our security
clearance systems, why would a reasonable person want a Middle Eastern
company involved with our ports?



Since you are unable to distinguish between an individual's professed
ideology and his country of origin, as you obviously are not, there's
little
point in continuing the discussion.

I'm talking US security measures. Did you know Americans holding US
security clearances can't even travel to certain countries? Ideology does
really have very little to do with it, it's a question of risk to vital
American interests.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/theor.../blsecmenu.htm



BTW, the arguments you set forth strongly suggest than all Arabs,
Pakistanis
and Iranians should be prohibited from holding NYC taxi drivers'
licenses.


In your mind it may.

Then, by your arguments it is perfectly ok for any foriegner to carry Bush's
nuclear football and the codes!

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 22 Feb 2006 09:25:48 -0800, "Joe" said:

I'm even OK with a chain of King Tut, or Abaulla Bob's gas (petrol)
stations. But somethings stinks with this port deal.

I'm not sure how I come down on the substance of this one, but one thing's
clear--all the screaming and yelling reflects pure Xenophobia rather than a
reasoned analysis. And now no matter how it's resolved, it will come back to
bite us.

I agree. There's no point in being hysterical about it. It was as
Frist said, tone deaf, on the part of the administration. What is
clear is that those who approved this (besides being politically
unsupervised children), seems to have gone around the safeguards that
are in place for this sort of transaction.. namely that a firewall
should be put up between the parent company and the US affiliate. This
is standard practice, but it wasn't done. Why? Also, is this the first
time that this sort of thing has happened in the last 6 or so years or
is this just the one that made the news?

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 23 Feb 2006 10:23:15 -0800, lid (Jonathan Ganz) said:

as
Frist said, tone deaf

If Frist did indeed say that (and I didn't hear him say it) he was echoing
the words of Lindsay Graham on one of the Sunday morning talk shows (which I
did see).

I'm pretty certain it was Frist, but he may be on the same page as
Graham also. Certainly, at least being tone deaf is true.


--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On 23 Feb 2006 09:24:24 -0800, "Joe" said:

When did Taxi drivers start dealing with national security efforts?

If you wanted to get a few bombs or microbes into critical areas of NYC's
infrastructure, there's probably no easier way to do it without arousing
suspicion than by using a cab.

I think a cab would be out of place in a subway station. Don't you?

In article , Jonathan Ganz
wrote:

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 22 Feb 2006 09:25:48 -0800, "Joe" said:

I'm even OK with a chain of King Tut, or Abaulla Bob's gas (petrol)
stations. But somethings stinks with this port deal.

I'm not sure how I come down on the substance of this one, but one thing's
clear--all the screaming and yelling reflects pure Xenophobia rather than a
reasoned analysis. And now no matter how it's resolved, it will come back to
bite us.

I agree. There's no point in being hysterical about it. It was as
Frist said, tone deaf, on the part of the administration. What is
clear is that those who approved this (besides being politically
unsupervised children), seems to have gone around the safeguards that
are in place for this sort of transaction.. namely that a firewall
should be put up between the parent company and the US affiliate. This
is standard practice, but it wasn't done. Why? Also, is this the first
time that this sort of thing has happened in the last 6 or so years or
is this just the one that made the news?

I really can't see why you guys are getting upset.

1. WRT security, my experience coincides with Scotty's. I had to get a
gee-whiz new security pass to work on the docks here. BFD, I wave it at
the magic reader and go inside. Mine is issued by the local Ports
Authority which is a State Govt body. In another year apparently
they'll be issued by the Feds. BFD again. It'll make no difference.

2. Security on cargo is, was and probably always will be a joke.
Scanning of cargo ditto. It's got little or nothing to do with the
ports operators, never has and never will. The CUSTOMS people are
responsible. IMHO the only way to ensure security is to check all cargo
on ships prior to berthing. This is obviously impractical so get over
it.

3. Port operators assign berths, cranes to ships, run stores and
container yards, provide other services to ships. Freight forwarders
and Customs deal with moving cargo and tracking cargo. It's obvious you
guys don't understand the differences. Maybe your ports guys do it all,
I dunno, but I doubt it.

4. Ship crew can & do smuggle anything they like, anywhere they like,
any time they like regardless of who's running a port. I could give you
pages of examples but I can't be bothered and it might give away
something my friends wouldn't like known.

5. Longshoremen ditto.

6. Dubai Ports has taken over P&O Ports. That means they will be
running approx 40% of the cargo handling in Australia. Nobody here
really cares. They are also going to be running ports in various other
places on the planet.

Clue time. Maybe their business is running ports, and they actually
know how to do it?

Second clue time. It's real estate. At least here in Oz, these guys run
the port facilities under the overarching control of a Govt body. They
can always lose it. It's not like they can take the port o/s with them
if they have a hissy fit.

This plays like a re-run of the 80's Japanese buying America. WGAF?

PDW

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 22:31:58 GMT, "Bob Crantz"
said:

If you wanted to get a few bombs or microbes into critical areas of
NYC's
infrastructure, there's probably no easier way to do it without arousing
suspicion than by using a cab.

I think a cab would be out of place in a subway station. Don't you?

Come back when you're thinking more clearly, Bob.

That might be a long time.

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Jonathan Ganz
wrote:

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 22 Feb 2006 09:25:48 -0800, "Joe" said:

I'm even OK with a chain of King Tut, or Abaulla Bob's gas (petrol)
stations. But somethings stinks with this port deal.

I'm not sure how I come down on the substance of this one, but one
thing's
clear--all the screaming and yelling reflects pure Xenophobia rather
than a
reasoned analysis. And now no matter how it's resolved, it will come
back to
bite us.

I agree. There's no point in being hysterical about it. It was as
Frist said, tone deaf, on the part of the administration. What is
clear is that those who approved this (besides being politically
unsupervised children), seems to have gone around the safeguards that
are in place for this sort of transaction.. namely that a firewall
should be put up between the parent company and the US affiliate. This
is standard practice, but it wasn't done. Why? Also, is this the first
time that this sort of thing has happened in the last 6 or so years or
is this just the one that made the news?

I really can't see why you guys are getting upset.

1. WRT security, my experience coincides with Scotty's. I had to get a
gee-whiz new security pass to work on the docks here. BFD, I wave it at
the magic reader and go inside. Mine is issued by the local Ports
Authority which is a State Govt body. In another year apparently
they'll be issued by the Feds. BFD again. It'll make no difference.

2. Security on cargo is, was and probably always will be a joke.
Scanning of cargo ditto. It's got little or nothing to do with the
ports operators, never has and never will. The CUSTOMS people are
responsible. IMHO the only way to ensure security is to check all cargo
on ships prior to berthing. This is obviously impractical so get over
it.

3. Port operators assign berths, cranes to ships, run stores and
container yards, provide other services to ships. Freight forwarders
and Customs deal with moving cargo and tracking cargo. It's obvious you
guys don't understand the differences. Maybe your ports guys do it all,
I dunno, but I doubt it.

4. Ship crew can & do smuggle anything they like, anywhere they like,
any time they like regardless of who's running a port. I could give you
pages of examples but I can't be bothered and it might give away
something my friends wouldn't like known.

5. Longshoremen ditto.

6. Dubai Ports has taken over P&O Ports. That means they will be
running approx 40% of the cargo handling in Australia. Nobody here
really cares. They are also going to be running ports in various other
places on the planet.

Clue time. Maybe their business is running ports, and they actually
know how to do it?

Second clue time. It's real estate. At least here in Oz, these guys run
the port facilities under the overarching control of a Govt body. They
can always lose it. It's not like they can take the port o/s with them
if they have a hissy fit.

This plays like a re-run of the 80's Japanese buying America. WGAF?

PDW

Thanks for giving facts so one can consider otherwise.

Amen!

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..

6. Dubai Ports has taken over P&O Ports. That means they
will be
running approx 40% of the cargo handling in Australia.
Nobody here
really cares. They are also going to be running ports in
various other
places on the planet.

Never heard of Dubai. I go to a P&O port about 4 times a
month.

Icould tell you some stories about what goes on at the
piers, but it sounds like you've seen / heard it all before.

Scotty

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On 23 Feb 2006 09:24:24 -0800, "Joe"
said:

When did Taxi drivers start dealing with national
security efforts?

If you wanted to get a few bombs or microbes into
critical areas of NYC's
infrastructure, there's probably no easier way to do it
without arousing
suspicion than by using a cab.

I think a cab would be out of place in a subway station.
Don't you?


You would need a Mini Cooper for that.

SV