OnTheRocks Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Arab control of Seaports I don't have a handle on this story yet but i think it is funny that when the President brings up 9/11 the Libs call it a scare tactic. This morning i watched Barbara Boxer and others say, "in our post 9/11 society, we cannot allow our ports to be left unprotected". Well which is it? Does that sound like a scare tactic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Arab control of SeaportsI don't have a handle on this story yet but i think it is funny that when the President brings up 9/11 the Libs call it a scare tactic. This morning i watched Barbara Boxer and others say, "in our post 9/11 society, we cannot allow our ports to be left unprotected". Well which is it? Does that sound like a scare tactic? 607231[/snapback] Was she using 9/11 to justify invading another country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Arab control of SeaportsI don't have a handle on this story yet but i think it is funny that when the President brings up 9/11 the Libs call it a scare tactic. This morning i watched Barbara Boxer and others say, "in our post 9/11 society, we cannot allow our ports to be left unprotected". Well which is it? Does that sound like a scare tactic? 607231[/snapback] I think it's holding accountable the people who have control of all three branches and claim to be protecting us with every move. Just me. Honestly, having read the story, do you think allowing these companies to control storage at our seaports is a good idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted February 20, 2006 Author Share Posted February 20, 2006 I think it's holding accountable the people who have control of all three branches and claim to be protecting us with every move. Just me. Honestly, having read the story, do you think allowing these companies to control storage at our seaports is a good idea? 607235[/snapback] based on what i know to this point...no. i don't think it is a good idea. but i also don't know all there is to know yet. from what i do know is: 1. there was a business transaction. 2. the US still controls port security. i think.....as Peter King said, a lot of these politicians just want to go on record right out of the shoot and say that they are against it in case something bad happens. I will be interested to hear what these same politicos have to say when people of Arab decent are refused employment by the companies that provide security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 America: For sale. Thanks partisans. Keep up the rancor that ensures these two money grubbing groups remain in power until the nation finally falls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 based on what i know to this point...no. i don't think it is a good idea. but i also don't know all there is to know yet. from what i do know is: 1. there was a business transaction. 2. the US still controls port security. i think.....as Peter King said, a lot of these politicians just want to go on record right out of the shoot and say that they are against it in case something bad happens. I will be interested to hear what these same politicos have to say when people of Arab decent are refused employment by the companies that provide security. 607253[/snapback] To me, blanket refusal of those of Arab descent is a disservice. The most qualified people may or may not be of a particular ethnicity. However, doing an extensive background check, as one should with ANY hiring process of this order, is not without reason. And if the person gives special reason to merit further checks, do it. I'm saying that the operation should not be owned from without, where the higher-end dealings may not have as much American oversight as is needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 To me, blanket refusal of those of Arab descent is a disservice. The most qualified people may or may not be of a particular ethnicity. However, doing an extensive background check, as one should with ANY hiring process of this order, is not without reason. And if the person gives special reason to merit further checks, do it. I'm saying that the operation should not be owned from without, where the higher-end dealings may not have as much American oversight as is needed. 607359[/snapback] I just find it surprising that an administration that claims to do whatever it takes to keep the USA safe from terrorists would hand over control of our largest ports to a company based in a region known to harbor terrorists. Sure, US forces still handle security, but they can only inspect about 5% of the containers that come in. Also, background checks would be nearly useless. How often do we hear about police and military in Arab nations that turn out to be working for Al-Qaida or affiliated groups? No one doubts DB World being a legitimate company, but being based in the U.A.E makes them vulnerable to infilitration. That's a huge risk for the US to take. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I just find it surprising that an administration that claims to do whatever it takes to keep the USA safe from terrorists would hand over control of our largest ports to a company based in a region known to harbor terrorists. Sure, US forces still handle security, but they can only inspect about 5% of the containers that come in. Also, background checks would be nearly useless. How often do we hear about police and military in Arab nations that turn out to be working for Al-Qaida or affiliated groups? No one doubts DB World being a legitimate company, but being based in the U.A.E makes them vulnerable to infilitration. That's a huge risk for the US to take. PTR 607447[/snapback] PTR -- we're talking about two different things, and we agree. I think that handing over control of these ports to a corp based out of a volatile region, no matter what they bid, is foolish. But hiring Americans of Arab descent to work in security roles should not give anyone pause (and that, I believe, was what the poster I was responding to was positing). They should simply go through the same rigorous background check we expect of all who are entrusted with our security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 But hiring Americans of Arab descent to work in security roles should not give anyone pause Ever fly through Reagan National? You'd swear it was Kuwait City some days. Seriously, what really changes except for which bank acount the money goes into? It might become difficult to have any real arab partners if we cut them out of everything investment related because "all arabs are terrorists". Most meaningful port security is technology driven anyway, and we provide and run the technology. I don't think the Longshoreman Unions are getting replaced with a bunch of ME'ers. The problem still lies with the actual cargos and the crews of the ships that deliver them, and I don't see where this affects that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 America: For sale. Thanks partisans. Keep up the rancor that ensures these two money grubbing groups remain in power until the nation finally falls. 607310[/snapback] If Congress wants to get involved (shudder...cold chill...) maybe they should look at a bill that designates what is critical infrastructure and prohibits operation of those facilities and institutions to anyone but Americans? I'm pretty sure the commerce department would have issues, and I can think of several go arounds - but for anyone with concerns, it might be a start. Another problem is, I'm not sure that everything is best operated by an American Company. Also, where dollars are involved, I'm cynical and pragmatic enough to think that American or not, it wouldn't much matter. Once again, whoever owns the container yards hasn't any control of what goes in or out of them, unless they ship a container - which they could do anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 If not the fear of Islamofascists, why didn't anyone raise an eyebrow when the same ports were operated by a British company over the last 6 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like A Mofo Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 If not the fear of Islamofascists, why didn't anyone raise an eyebrow when the same ports were operated by a British company over the last 6 years? 607668[/snapback] Good point. the real issue IMO is...why in God's name would the United States give ANY control to ANY other country to decide what comes in and out of our ports? We are the most powerful country in the World and we have to outsource this to another country???? That is an embarassment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moose Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Good point. the real issue IMO is...why in God's name would the United States give ANY control to ANY other country to decide what comes in and out of our ports? We are the most powerful country in the World and we have to outsource this to another country???? That is an embarassment. 607670[/snapback] I agree that control of ANY U.S. port should not be in the hands of ANY non-U.S. entity. Why the outsourcing? That's a good question. Not to rehash the dreaded "Union Thread", but maybe it has to do with the high cost of American labor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I agree that control of ANY U.S. port should not be in the hands of ANY non-U.S. entity. Why the outsourcing? That's a good question. Not to rehash the dreaded "Union Thread", but maybe it has to do with the high cost of American labor? 607674[/snapback] Outsourcing the management of these ports will not avoid the fact that longshoremen will be loading and unloading the ships in these ports. I don't see how this has anything to do with unions or the high cost of American labor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Outsourcing the management of these ports will not avoid the fact that longshoremen will be loading and unloading the ships in these ports. I don't see how this has anything to do with unions or the high cost of American labor. 607680[/snapback] That's kind of my point too. Someone define "operations". Anyone here ever spent any time around a container port? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 That's kind of my point too. Someone define "operations". Anyone here ever spent any time around a container port? 607685[/snapback] I think Soprano did, but he's not posting anymore... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Good point. the real issue IMO is...why in God's name would the United States give ANY control to ANY other country to decide what comes in and out of our ports? We are the most powerful country in the World and we have to outsource this to another country???? That is an embarassment. 607670[/snapback] We don't. Port operations is not the same as managing and determining the content that moves in and out. As I rightly heard pointed out this morning: physical security in terms of shipping containers is still the responsibility of US Customs, people are still the responsiblity of Immigration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like A Mofo Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 We don't. Port operations is not the same as managing and determining the content that moves in and out. As I rightly heard pointed out this morning: physical security in terms of shipping containers is still the responsibility of US Customs, people are still the responsiblity of Immigration. 607702[/snapback] Thanks for clearing that up...this I did not know...but honestly...why even open yourself to questions if you are a member of the Bush administration...especially after 9/11 AND especially since two of the ports in question are right around New York...make everything American...but I guess that thinking is thinking of the past. For PR reasons alone, this is a mistake IMO. And I am not a Bush basher by any means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I keep asking myself why we have to "outsource" this work at all. There is no American company that can handle it? What CAN we handle anymore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I keep asking myself why we have to "outsource" this work at all. There is no American company that can handle it? What CAN we handle anymore? 607708[/snapback] How would you like your burger? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts