"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
...

Port Operations is not part of our national security, I would hate to
think we have turned over national security to a bunch of Longshoreman and
a company whose responsibility is to unload freight as quickly as
possible. The national security of our ports is and should be the
responsibility's of US Custom and Homeland Security.

Did you read the article by Clark Kent Ervin, in which he said there *is*
some overlap between port management and security. Which part of the 5th
paragraph do you not believe, and why don't you believe it?

(Clark Kent Ervin, the inspector general of the Homeland Security
Department from 2003 to 2004, is the author of the forthcoming "Open
Target: Where America is Vulnerable to Attack.")

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
...

Port Operations is not part of our national security, I would hate to
think we have turned over national security to a bunch of Longshoreman and
a company whose responsibility is to unload freight as quickly as
possible. The national security of our ports is and should be the
responsibility's of US Custom and Homeland Security.

Did you read the article by Clark Kent Ervin, in which he said there *is*
some overlap between port management and security. Which part of the 5th
paragraph do you not believe, and why don't you believe it?

(Clark Kent Ervin, the inspector general of the Homeland Security
Department from 2003 to 2004, is the author of the forthcoming "Open
Target: Where America is Vulnerable to Attack.")

Clark is recommending changes to protect America and his recommendations
needs to be reviewed, no matter who owns the freight companies. If
there is a weakness in our system, it won't take very long for terrorist
to take advantage of it. They don't need to own a freight line to take
advantage, and we should not have holes so big that the owner or
employees can take advantage of the holes.


--
Reggie
************************************************** *************
That's my story and I am sticking to it.

************************************************** *************

"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
. ..
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
...

Port Operations is not part of our national security, I would hate to
think we have turned over national security to a bunch of Longshoreman
and a company whose responsibility is to unload freight as quickly as
possible. The national security of our ports is and should be the
responsibility's of US Custom and Homeland Security.

Did you read the article by Clark Kent Ervin, in which he said there *is*
some overlap between port management and security. Which part of the 5th
paragraph do you not believe, and why don't you believe it?

(Clark Kent Ervin, the inspector general of the Homeland Security
Department from 2003 to 2004, is the author of the forthcoming "Open
Target: Where America is Vulnerable to Attack.")

Clark is recommending changes to protect America and his recommendations
needs to be reviewed, no matter who owns the freight companies. If there
is a weakness in our system, it won't take very long for terrorist to take
advantage of it. They don't need to own a freight line to take advantage,
and we should not have holes so big that the owner or employees can take
advantage of the holes.

Fine, but you are in love with this, which you said earlier - you keep
saying it: "Port Operations is not part of our national security". Ervin,
who knows more about this than you or I, says otherwise. Do you doubt what
he says? If you do doubt what he says, explain why.

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
. ..
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
...

Port Operations is not part of our national security, I would hate to
think we have turned over national security to a bunch of Longshoreman
and a company whose responsibility is to unload freight as quickly as
possible. The national security of our ports is and should be the
responsibility's of US Custom and Homeland Security.
Did you read the article by Clark Kent Ervin, in which he said there *is*
some overlap between port management and security. Which part of the 5th
paragraph do you not believe, and why don't you believe it?

(Clark Kent Ervin, the inspector general of the Homeland Security
Department from 2003 to 2004, is the author of the forthcoming "Open
Target: Where America is Vulnerable to Attack.")
Clark is recommending changes to protect America and his recommendations
needs to be reviewed, no matter who owns the freight companies. If there
is a weakness in our system, it won't take very long for terrorist to take
advantage of it. They don't need to own a freight line to take advantage,
and we should not have holes so big that the owner or employees can take
advantage of the holes.

Fine, but you are in love with this, which you said earlier - you keep
saying it: "Port Operations is not part of our national security". Ervin,
who knows more about this than you or I, says otherwise. Do you doubt what
he says? If you do doubt what he says, explain why.


Erwin knows more than I do. We should never turn over national security
to Longshoreman and a company whose priority is to move fright as
quickly as possible. The threat exists no matter who owns the fright line.

--
Reggie
************************************************** *************
That's my story and I am sticking to it.

************************************************** *************

"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
...

Fine, but you are in love with this, which you said earlier - you keep
saying it: "Port Operations is not part of our national security". Ervin,
who knows more about this than you or I, says otherwise. Do you doubt
what he says? If you do doubt what he says, explain why.
Erwin knows more than I do. We should never turn over national security
to Longshoreman and a company whose priority is to move fright as quickly
as possible. The threat exists no matter who owns the fright line.

--
Reggie

Longshoreman aren't the issue. They wield enough power to shut down any port
in this country. Ervin said the operator will be in charge of hiring OTHER
employees who are not longshoreman, and whose job will involve security that
is NOT PROVIDED BY CUSTOMS & COAST GUARD. That's the weakness. If you think
that a night security guard can't be paid to look the other way for 15
minutes, you are crazy.

Among other things, members of congress want to know what kinds of
background checks will be done on employees. Anyone who thinks it's unfair
for them to ask this question is a complete idiot.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Port Operations is not part of our national security,


OF course what happens in a port is connected to our national security.

Forget it, Harry. Anyone with an ounce of imagination can see the connection
between the port operator and the potential for security issues. But,
Smithers has chosen not to see it. There's nothing you can do about this.

Fortunately, he's not a security consultant of any kind. His idea of
securing an office building would be to make sure there were two extra rolls
of toilet paper in every bathroom.

Damn, more common sense!



On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 23:03:10 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


On Port Security: Slower, Please
Neither Rubber Stamps of Approval Nor Hyperventilating Objection Serve
Security
By Steve Schippert
After several days of battling both for and against the prospect of Dubai
Ports World acquiring P&O Steam Navigation and, thus, operation of several
of our largest maritime ports, I have consistently come to one daily
conclusion: Breathe.

That suggestion, by the way, is not directed solely at the many in such
spirited opposition to the deal, but also at the Bush Administration and the
Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS). There is
absolutely no need to rush this through, especially when there is quite
obviously a great deal of concern among the American public. Neither the
ports nor P&O Steam Navigation nor their buyers, Dubai Ports World, are
going to vaporize within a 30-day or 45-day window for review. Our nation's
security (and our public's peace of mind) deserve this consideration.

There are many aspects that warrant a closer look, including the true nature
of the UAE's support in the War on Terror, the current state of their
banking system - long used throughout the region for nefarious causes, the
fact that it will be a government-owned company servicing our ports and not
a private entity, and how they intend to staff the various ports'
management. The Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States may
very well have vetted this to their own satisfaction in their customary
secrecy. But, in this case, such secrecy will not be deemed acceptable.
There are means of publicly vetting these important issues without
compromising sensitive information. Perhaps not perfectly, but for a matter
of such great public concern, complete secrecy is counterproductive
regardless of the ultimate result of any hearings and public review. In this
instance, the risk of secrecy appears far greater than the risk of sensitive
exposure.

With that being said, the ownership of the US port operations by a UAE
government-owned firm is not the security concern that the degree of current
hyperventilating seems to insist in much of the political and media spheres
(both old and new).

Let's take a logical look at a few of the issues of concern.

a.. The UAE is not buying US ports.
There still seems to be a fair number who characterize the issue as the
United Arab Emirates 'buying' ports. They are not. Their DP World is buying
a company who happens to have rights to the leases to operate the various
ports. DP World will own nothing but rights (important rights, to be sure)
and heavy equipment. Those rights also expire with the leases offered by the
states that own the various ports.

a.. The US Coast Guard and US Customs, now under DHS command, is in charge
of inbound maritime port security, not the port operator.
It is not the function of port operators to inspect cargo or enact the type
of security measures that many seem to assume. The security checks in
question are addressed before the port operator has 'custody' of the ship
for unloading operations. Inbound cargo vessels are stopped and inspected by
the US Coast Guard at a safe distance. One can argue that they do not
inspect all/enough cargo containers, but that does not fall under the
auspices, control or even influence of the port operators. If one desires
more inspections, then the proper channel is through elected officials and
the Department of Homeland Security, but not Peninsular & Oriental Steam
Navigation today or, potentially, the UAE-owned Dubai Ports World at a
future date. Screening simply does not fall to them.

a.. The concern over potentially dubious UAE hiring practices is largely a
non sequitur.
Why? Because the hiring of the hands-on crews that operate the equipment to
dock, unload and load the commercial transport vessels is determined by the
American unions who man the yards. Anyone who has ever attempted to become a
longshoreman has had to either go through the International Longshoreman's
Association on the East Coast or the International Longshoremen &
Warehousers' Union on the West Coast, and getting into the union is no easy
task. Is an American Union going to tolerate quietly any attempt by the UAE
(or US Federal Government, for that matter) to employ a non-union member on
the docks or an attempt to squeeze a foreign citizen onto their payrolls?

Let's also consider that these longshoremen are by and large a secondary
line of defense who are not tasked with inspection. Their job is to 'yank
and crank', to unload and load cargo as quickly as is safely possible.

If one still has concerns, right after a major shift change, stroll down to
the local watering hole near Port Long Beach or outside New Jersey's Port
Elizabeth servicing New York City. When you get inside, amidst the lifted
beers and tall tales of high school football glory days, shout out loud,
"You people cannot be trusted with this port any longer!" Be sure to observe
the response with alertness and quick feet. They take great pride in what
they do, and to suggest that they would allow anything untoward to happen to
their own dock or their own country is an exercise in folly. These are the
men who ran the docks before the March 2 purchase of P&O by the UAE's DP
World, and they will be the same ones manning the docks afterwards.

If DP World (or P&O, for that matter) decided who loaded & unloaded the
ships, operated the cranes and moved the cargo, this would be a potential
concern. But, they do not, did not and will not.

If DP World were to even actually have in its employ at a port a
questionable character in a management position with ill intent, he would
have no more effect on an inbound shipment's ability to thwart US Customs
and Coast Guard security checks than he would from the sending end. The idea
that a port operator would somehow be more able to sneak a deadly container
into a port is an idea founded without understanding the disconnect between
the port operator and the inbound inspections system employed by the USCG
and Customs before entering the port.

a.. With few allies in the region, what does it say to those we do have if
we reject the UAE and DP World for essentially 'Operating While Arab'?
Consider the inexplicable context provided by our own former vice president,
Al Gore, who charged just days ago in a paid speech at a Saudi
Arabian-hosted Middle Eastern economic summit that America has and is
mistreating Arabs worldwide. He said that Arabs are "indiscriminately
rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a
green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just
unforgivable. Unfortunately there have been terrible abuses and it's wrong.
I do want you to know that it does not represent the desires or wishes or
feelings of the majority of the citizens of my country."

Ironically, it should not go without notice that many of the American
politicians now loudly opposed to this deal are doing so in generalities and
pouncing upon the Arab aspect largely for public consumption, playing to the
wave of initial reaction. Yet, these politicians who opposed racial
profiling of young Arab males for particular attention in our airports after
the attacks of September 11, 2001, are now engaged in openly racially
profiling and entire nation. This incongruous stance should disqualify them
from the ranks of those who should be taken seriously. With little doubt and
much irony, they are 'playing on our fears'.

If we simply reject the UAE-owned DP World bid with this tone amid the
backdrop mindlessly and erroneously laid by our own former vice president,
it will carry loud and lasting reverberations throughout the Middle East, a
region whose slow self-transformation we rely upon heavily for the future
safety and security of our own children.

This is a long war with few clear victories. Are we prepared to now cede one
of the few allies we have in the region and accept the long-term
consequences without taking a longer, closer look?

For these key reasons, while it is important to take our time and be certain
and look for other potential risks, the key fears cited are not necessarily
based on a solid understanding of the security impact of a port operator.
With a longer and more detailed public look at both the role of a port
operator and the UAE's DP World, it will likely become clear that this is
not at all the security risk that it first seemed to be. But, to assume
otherwise or even to arrive at that judgment without such further review is
wholly irresponsible.

To be sure, there are many aspects that warrant a more patient and more
public inspection. So, let's take our time and have a closer look and have
it very publicly for our own peace of mind, one way or the other.

But be forewarned on potential Congressional review: So long as there are
cameras in the chambers, we will be more likely to see many politicians
seeking to bend testimony around their already-stated public positions
rather than seeking a true understanding, regardless of their perceptions.
Most will, typically, exit any such procedure with the same view they
entered into it with. For this reason, the public must not let this rest on
The Hill. The American public must remain engaged.

We, the people, need to review and work to understand the facts and
implications.

The items listed above are not offered as justification for waving the DP
World deal through. Not at all. Their purpose here is to simply serve as a
brown paper bag for the hyperventilating to breathe into. We need to make an
important security decision with long term implications. We cannot possibly
make a sound judgment with a rubber stamp in one hand while hyperventilating
into the other.




http://commentary.threatswatch.org/2...slower-please/


--
'Til next time,

John H

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

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:24:37 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
...

Port Operations is not part of our national security, I would hate to
think we have turned over national security to a bunch of Longshoreman and
a company whose responsibility is to unload freight as quickly as
possible. The national security of our ports is and should be the
responsibility's of US Custom and Homeland Security.

Did you read the article by Clark Kent Ervin, in which he said there *is*
some overlap between port management and security. Which part of the 5th
paragraph do you not believe, and why don't you believe it?

(Clark Kent Ervin, the inspector general of the Homeland Security
Department from 2003 to 2004, is the author of the forthcoming "Open
Target: Where America is Vulnerable to Attack.")


Doug, if Customs folks and crane operators pee in the same toilet there is
some overlap. *What* overlap? You are trying to make it sound as though
they are the same function. They aren't.
--
'Til next time,

John H

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

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:24:37 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
...

Port Operations is not part of our national security, I would hate to
think we have turned over national security to a bunch of Longshoreman
and
a company whose responsibility is to unload freight as quickly as
possible. The national security of our ports is and should be the
responsibility's of US Custom and Homeland Security.

Did you read the article by Clark Kent Ervin, in which he said there *is*
some overlap between port management and security. Which part of the 5th
paragraph do you not believe, and why don't you believe it?

(Clark Kent Ervin, the inspector general of the Homeland Security
Department from 2003 to 2004, is the author of the forthcoming "Open
Target: Where America is Vulnerable to Attack.")


Doug, if Customs folks and crane operators pee in the same toilet there is
some overlap. *What* overlap? You are trying to make it sound as though
they are the same function. They aren't.

Never mind, John. Sorry to disturb your reverie.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


NOYB is just desperately looking for rationalizations to explain away this
latest screw-up of you know who.

No, I don't buy that. Most likely, if GB had stepped in during the
acquisition phase and announced that no Arab entity was going to be allowed
to run the subject port operations, the media and you-know-whos would be all
over him for further alienating our few remaining Arab allies. He can't
win.

I don't know what I think of this whole situation but NOYB's post of the
Steve Schippert article was about the cleanest summary that makes sense of
all the wild stories.

RCE