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

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:47:03 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Gene Kearns wrote:
No matter what side of the aisle you sit on, this is just nuts!

And particularly affects:
New York
New Jersey
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Baltimore, Maryland
Miami, Florida
New Orleans, Louisiana

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185479,00.html
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1644106
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/...ity/index.html
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3652381.html

If there is any REAL concern with security, why is this being bid to
any NON American firm? This is just plain nuts!



Bush's failure of a homeland security director, Michael Chertoff, was
all over the TV talk shows the last few days, trying to convince someone
- anyone - that it was a good idea to turn US port security over the a
company controlled by the United Arab Emirates.

What's next from Bush...contracting out the domestic oversight duties of
the NRC to an Iranian-North Korean collaborative?

And just as important - so long as our southern border with Mexico is
open, we do not have homeland security, period. The $2 billion a week
we're blowing in Iraq would go a long way towards making our borders secure.

He said nothing about port security. He was speaking of port operations.
For some reason, many of you are confusing the two.
--
'Til next time,

John H

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

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

"JohnH" wrote in message
...

He said nothing about port security. He was speaking of port operations.
For some reason, many of you are confusing the two.

Last I heard, we were barely able to check 10% of incoming containers. If a
hostile party controlled operations, do you think that number could change,
either by manipulating security, or other means?

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

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:46:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .

He said nothing about port security. He was speaking of port operations.
For some reason, many of you are confusing the two.

Last I heard, we were barely able to check 10% of incoming containers. If a
hostile party controlled operations, do you think that number could change,
either by manipulating security, or other means?


Not unless we beef up port security, i.e., the Coast Guard and Border
Patrol. Crane operators don't inspect containers.
--
'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 20:46:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..

He said nothing about port security. He was speaking of port operations.
For some reason, many of you are confusing the two.

Last I heard, we were barely able to check 10% of incoming containers. If
a
hostile party controlled operations, do you think that number could
change,
either by manipulating security, or other means?


Not unless we beef up port security, i.e., the Coast Guard and Border
Patrol. Crane operators don't inspect containers.

I didn't ask the question correctly. Do you think the operator could
negatively affect security if they wanted to?

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

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:03:15 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:46:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
...

He said nothing about port security. He was speaking of port operations.
For some reason, many of you are confusing the two.

Last I heard, we were barely able to check 10% of incoming containers. If
a
hostile party controlled operations, do you think that number could
change,
either by manipulating security, or other means?


Not unless we beef up port security, i.e., the Coast Guard and Border
Patrol. Crane operators don't inspect containers.

I didn't ask the question correctly. Do you think the operator could
negatively affect security if they wanted to?


He could, unless the port security was doing its job properly.
--
'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 21:03:15 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:46:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
m...

He said nothing about port security. He was speaking of port
operations.
For some reason, many of you are confusing the two.

Last I heard, we were barely able to check 10% of incoming containers.
If
a
hostile party controlled operations, do you think that number could
change,
either by manipulating security, or other means?


Not unless we beef up port security, i.e., the Coast Guard and Border
Patrol. Crane operators don't inspect containers.

I didn't ask the question correctly. Do you think the operator could
negatively affect security if they wanted to?


He could, unless the port security was doing its job properly.

I wish all terrorists thought the way you do. We'd have nothing to worry
about.

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

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:11:54 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:03:15 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:46:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
om...

He said nothing about port security. He was speaking of port
operations.
For some reason, many of you are confusing the two.

Last I heard, we were barely able to check 10% of incoming containers.
If
a
hostile party controlled operations, do you think that number could
change,
either by manipulating security, or other means?


Not unless we beef up port security, i.e., the Coast Guard and Border
Patrol. Crane operators don't inspect containers.

I didn't ask the question correctly. Do you think the operator could
negatively affect security if they wanted to?


He could, unless the port security was doing its job properly.

I wish all terrorists thought the way you do. We'd have nothing to worry
about.


Doug, no where in our posts have I commented on my opinion of the idea. I
tried to keep my posts non-political. I did respond with my opinion to
basskisser, however.
--
'Til next time,

John H

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

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

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:11:54 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:03:15 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:46:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
om...

He said nothing about port security. He was speaking of port
operations.
For some reason, many of you are confusing the two.

Last I heard, we were barely able to check 10% of incoming containers.
If
a
hostile party controlled operations, do you think that number could
change,
either by manipulating security, or other means?


Not unless we beef up port security, i.e., the Coast Guard and Border
Patrol. Crane operators don't inspect containers.

I didn't ask the question correctly. Do you think the operator could
negatively affect security if they wanted to?


He could, unless the port security was doing its job properly.

I wish all terrorists thought the way you do. We'd have nothing to worry
about.


PS. Unless I'm mistaken, port operations are pretty well unionized. I can't
imagine the unions allowing any terrorist activities to occur regardless of
who the supervisors are.
--
'Til next time,

John H

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