On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
 

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! *****
******************************************

On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
 

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.
--
'Til next time,

John H

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

On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
 

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:33:41 -0500, JohnH wrote:


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

If you think operations and security don't overlap, you are the one that
is confused.

On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
 

"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?

On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
 

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:48:01 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:33:41 -0500, JohnH wrote:


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

If you think operations and security don't overlap, you are the one that
is confused.

Overlap and totality are two different things. Saying the UAE would be
responsible for port security is flat wrong. The responsibility for port
security remains where it is.
--
'Til next time,

John H

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

On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
 

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.
--
'Til next time,

John H

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

On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
 

"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?

On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
 

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:01:31 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
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.
--
'Til next time,

John H

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


It's a mighty fine line, once you get into it.

Don't you get weary of rationalizing Bush's dumb decisions?

Next time you ship a car overseas, or return it to the Port of Baltimore,
you'll see the difference between port security and port operations.
--
'Til next time,

John H

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

On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
 

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:03:24 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
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.
--
'Til next time,

John H

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


In the long run, the two become one and the same.

This is a display of a lack of knowledge about the two.
--
'Til next time,

John H

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

On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
 

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! *****
******************************************