Posted on 02/21/2006 11:21:25 PM PST by presidio9
-snip-
the notion that the Bush Administration is farming out port "security" to hostile Arab nations is alarmist nonsense. Dubai Ports World would be managing the commercial activities of these U.S. ports, not securing them. There's a difference. Port security falls to Coast Guard and U.S. Customs officials. "Nothing changes with respect to security under the contract," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday. "The Coast Guard is in charge of security, not the corporation."
In a telephone interview yesterday, Kristie Clemens of U.S. Customs and Border Protection elaborated that "Customs and Border Protection has the sole responsibility for the cargo processing and cargo security, incoming and outgoing. The port authority sets the guidelines for the entire port, and port operators have to follow those guidelines."
The timing of this sudden uproar is also a tad suspicious. A bidding war for the British-owned P&O has been going on since last autumn, and the P&O board accepted Dubai's latest offer last month. The story only blew up last week, as a Florida firm that is a partner with P&O in Miami, Continental Stevedoring and Terminals Inc., filed a suit to block the purchase. Miami's mayor also sent a letter of protest to Mr. Bush. It wouldn't be the first time if certain politicians were acting here on behalf of private American commercial interests.
-snip-
As for the Democrats, we suppose this is a two-fer: They have a rare opportunity to get to the right of the GOP on national security, and they can play to their union, anti-foreign investment base as well. At a news conference in front of New York harbor, Senator Chuck Schumer said allowing the Arab company to manage ports "is a homeland security accident waiting to happen." Hillary Clinton is also along for this political ride.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
"Things are not exactly as they might seem to a lot of people around here. Wouldn't be the first time unsuspecting people with their hearts in the right place got played by Hillary & Co."
Thank you for additional info. I hope more will get informed. Yesterday I though I was at the DU, not FR.
Reading through both, it seems to me the Coast Guard will be the final and absolute source of security. The references you mention do describe a cooperative effort between port operators and the Coast Guard, however they do not state implicitly, or even vaguely imply (IMO) that the port operators will have sole discretion over port security. In fact, in this post, quite the opposite is stated,
In the short term, these challenges are formidable, because the Coast Guard expects to handle the added July-December inspection load mainly by using reservists with widely varying degrees of training and experience. In the longer term, when the Coast Guard plans to conduct annual compliance inspections for the approximately 12,300 facilities and vessels, it faces the challenge of ensuring that owners and operators continue implementing their plans. In this regard, our work has shown that there are options the Coast Guard could consider beyond regularly scheduled visits, such as unscheduled, unannounced visits and covert testing to help ensure owners and operators do not mask security problems in ways that do not represent the normal course of business.
As far as financial assistance for taking part (not in charge of but taking part) in their own security, IMO that's a bit of a waste of taxpayer dollars, but in of itself, that doesn't prove anything more than corporate welfare (something I'm opposed to, yes, but not something that proves free reign over their own security).
Look, I generally respect Michelle Malkin, but how did you think she was going to react here? She made a name for herself as a hot conservative asian woman who wrote a book defending Japanese Internment. She has followed it up by being one of the media's biggest champions of closed borders. Today's article does not give me the sense that she is privy to any new information, and it does not refute the primary observation: that port security will remain the province of the US Coast Guard and US Customs Service.
The point is that we should avoid rushing to judgement before all the facts are in. Michelle has never worked in the government or in ports managment. Why is her opinion the slightest bit relevant?
The interests of the monied elites are first and for most in W's mind, if you think security trumps (elites) money come to the border states and checkout border security.
I knew somebody will bring up the border issue.
So, who are you going to trust? Hillary and Shumer?
The main details that I now know are enough for me.
1. They are renting terminals at the ports, NOT buying our ports
2. They will NOT be in charge of security, that has always and will remain under our control. DHS, US Customs, and the Coast Guard.
3. Something like 99% of the workers will be American citizens that are union members(The same people that are working the docks today)
making this deal or not is not an option or something to vote about.
I think capital is a rather shy deer and if you practiced active protectionism to much (up till now every economy has it's fences you may not jump over) you would scare away investors.
Foreign investment is the air the US economy is breathing - particularly those from islamic nation.
Do you have any information on the concerns regarding containers raised in post #83. I know of at least one case were containers are stored under a major artery leading out of New York City.
Well if the GOP continues it's open borders, big spending, globalist ways I might be forced to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.