Skip to comments.Senate doesn't bother to question P&O security chief about port security matters
Posted on 03/02/2006 6:07:17 PM PST by STARWISE
Concerns over port security may be sky high, but the chief of security for the East Coast's main port operator, Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., hardly knew it when he sat before a Senate Commerce panel on Tuesday.
More than a dozen senators grilled U.S. government officials, and the chief operator officer of Dubai Ports World, which is on the verge of acquiring P&O and all its world-wide port operations. But no senator had a single question for Robert Scavone, the man who oversees P&O's security for North America -- and will do the same for DP World.
Scavone said later that the whole issue of a potential security threat in the DP World acquisition has left him baffled. "Nobody touches a box or moves a box unless he's a longshoreman," he said. Nor will anything change on the U.S. side of the operation. If DP World seeks to change a senior management position in the U.S., the government will get to weigh in on the choice.
"I've been wracking my brain to try to figure what bad thing might happen if someone seven levels up the chain buys the company, and I just can't think of anything," he said.
His remarks came as Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt defended the administration's review of the deal before a House panel on Wednesday. Critics have blasted the administration for undertaking a formal 30-day review, instead of a 45-day one, even though the administration first made contact with DP World in mid-October. "Staff spent nearly 90 days reviewing this transaction," Kimmitt said.
DP World has since requested the government to open a new, 45-day review.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Very interesting, indeed - thanks for the heads up - I guess this guy will keep a sharp watch out for all those A-Rabs sneaking in at least ; )
They don't want to hear the answers he will give them...
The fact is none of them know enough to ask an intelligent question. All they can do is cry and whine.
so they spent 90 days doing a 30 day review? ...and Congress is complaining that they didn't spend 45 days on it?
Thanks for this most interesting post. Dolts is putting it to kindly.
Security? Security? We don't need no Steenkin' security!
Not one question. And they tell us this is about Security????
The DIMS and their buddies known as the MSM condemn EVERYTHING this administration does whether it is TOO MUCH SECURITY [Electronic Surveillance], TOO LITTLE SECURITY [DPW], too much "GO IT ALONE" or too much "DIPLOMACY".
Never in the history of this nation has so much Bull Sh.t been passed off as the truth [by the MSM and the Dim Party] as it has the past few years.
The truly SAD and DISGRACEFUL fact is our NATION is at WAR, our men and women are sacrificing life and limb to ensure our freedom here at home and give others, who never had it, a chance to embrace it, and the enemy within is doing everything possible to make sure that the C-in-C and his troops LOSE!!!
That's the absolute truth. You need to send this to Rush.
They don't want to hear;
-anything to disrupt their tunnel vision focus against GWB
I've not heard one allegation yet. Who do I have to ask to get one?
Not one question by the 100 most worthless Senators.
Actually, I've not yet heard one credible allegation by anyone, anywhere.
Without evidence, what is all the hubbub about?
If folks are arguing this will make our ports unsafe, surely they must have evidence that this company has in the past made other ports unsafe, yes???
Sad sad sad ... and it truly is what it's come to. Anything fo party and power, to h*ll with the country's survival and the lives of our brave military.
I'd be curious -- do you have any specific allegation that this company has ever in the past endangered a port anywhere by 'stevedoring'???
(What a word that is, eh? I never heard that before this debate.)
You know exactly what it says.
Congress is complaining about them not doing a "mandated" review that isn't even mandated.
It ought to scare the hell out of everybody here that these fools are running this country.
LOL.....well, you've asked all the Unappeasables on FR; who's left?
Yah, I've about run the fun out of this line.
Just about time to go play civ, and leave the Freeping to those with some idea of what's going on in the world.
Hillary Clinton was too busy getting in front of a microphone to actually ask a question.
It scares me that a grandstander like Norm Coleman is anywhere near the levers of power in the Senate.
This issue is no longer about the security of the country. It's about these cowards pulling their butts out of the fire which THEY lit!!!!
This was Tuesday's hearings...and it is just now being written about...and it will never see the light of MSM.
The little bit of the Senate hearing that I saw the other day, had only Democrat Senators asking questions...and I was really disappointed.
Just like the hastily called hearing last week...only Sen. Warner was in attendance for that one on the GOP side.
She's always trying to get out in front of the parade, isn't she?
If only someone would ask her why, if it's such a bad deal with a bad company, her husband is trying to get his friends jobs there.
How long should we wait?
I meant to ping you to this one.
Thanks for the ping.
I'm wondering if they will admit they are wrong.
And, her husband's Sec. of State, Maddy Albright's lobbying firm is handling the Dubai company.
I also want these Congresscritters, that keep saying that the difference between the British firm and the Dubai firm is that the Dubai firm is govrernment-owned instead of a private company, WHY that makes a difference where security is concerned.
I am sure a terrorist can infiltrate a private company easier than a government-owned company, or at least the same.
I wish I could say I'm surprised, but I'm not.
I'll win "American Idol" before that happens.
Which one are you? :-)
I've not heard anything negative in that vein ... on the contrary, they operate in so many global ports, I don't know how they could achieve the success they have if they weren't stringent on security. Their business would demand it.
This says chapters about our critters in the Senate....where were the people who know what we allready know. These people are clueless and need to be replaced.
We have better canidates here at FR.
That's what I've heard, too.
It's just odd -- I would have thought that those who are arguing that this deal will make our ports unsafe would have asked if this company ever made any other ports unsafe before . . .
Seems like that's the natural first step.
PERCEPTION is the reason Bush should rush to dump this deal, it doesn't matter if he is right, right doesn't win you anything, try being right in a car crash when you lose your life. Will you come back to life because you were right? No, and we will not win seats in the next election if we are right on this.
We WILL lose seats in november if we keep pushing this thing, and winning in November is more important than keeping Dubai happy and being right(politics trumps all, if you don't believe that, you haven't lived very long). Bush needs to back down before it is to late.
The 40 something white guy that makes your dogs howl ;-)
It says they don't care about port security.
It says they don't care about the WOT.
It says they don't care about the Bush Presidency.
It says they wouldn't know a sea port from a burgundy port.
It says they pander to anything that helps keep them in power or fills their pockets.
I don't usually pick on spelling, punctuation or grammar but...isn't that what you meant? ;^P
yeah, great attitude. pure pre 9-11 thinking:
"well, these arab pilot trainees can't be a problem. show me one incident anywhere else in the past where arab trainee pilots were used as terrorists? what are they going to do, fly the planes into a building?".
that's the exact analogy you are making here.
I hadn't realized this; excellent find. Thanks for the ping.
Exactly. How could it make any difference? There are over one million Muslims living in London. (and no, I'm not saying they're all terrorists) With liberal, political correctness pervading British laws how could they possibly prevent Muslim terrorists from getting jobs with P&O? (As if that would help in any way with a terrorist plot. These companies that lease the terminals are seven levels of management removed from actual port operations in the words of the P&O Security Chief.)
that's the exact analogy you are making here.
Very close, yes.
Are you suggesting that our country should start refusing all arab pilot trainees? Or am I misreading your point?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we don't yet do that, do we?
You see, I'd suggest that instead, they look into evidence that a specific arab wannabe pilot has terrorist ties, like, oh, say, Mo Atta did.
So, assuming that evidence means something to you -- do you have any credible evidence that this company, this group of company executives, these folks who will control this deal -- that they are connected to any known terrorists?
No. Wait a minute. That Israeli shipping official who fully and adamantly endorsed DPW today kind of puts a crimp into the Israeli angle. OK. It was about giving up the sovereignty of our ports to a foreign country.
What's that? Its not ports, its just terminals...dammit. OK, it's about human rights abuses in the UAE. Yeah, that's it. Did you read the report by Amnesty International? Wow. Why would we ever do business with such a country?
Oh, you mean the US is written up by Amnesty International as being worst in the world when it comes to human rights abuses? Worse than the UAE? Well who cares what they say in their stupid report.
I'll tell you what. I'll get back with you in a bit to tell you what the real objection has always been to this port deal. But I assure you, it is VERY SERIOUS. And I can't believe Bush let this slide through.
That's all the evidence a lot of folks need.
But don't call these folks Islamophobic.