Posted on 02/19/2006 5:07:48 PM PST by Sweetjustusnow
How would you feel if, in the aftermath of 9/11, the U.S. government had decided to contract out airport security to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the country where most of the operational planning and financing of the attacks occurred? My guess is you, like most Americans, would think it a lunatic idea, one that could clear the way for still more terror in this country. You probably would want to know who on earth approved such a plan -- and be determined to prevent it from happening.
This risk management concept will be embodied in the ISPS Code through a number of minimum functional security requirements for ships and port facilities. For ships, such requirements will include:
• ship security plans;
• ship security officers;
• company security officers; and
• certain onboard equipment.
For port facilities, the requirements will include:
• port facility security plans; and
• port facility security officers.
In addition the requirements for ships and for port facilities will include:
• monitoring and controlling access;
• monitoring the activities of people and cargo; and
• ensuring that security communications are readily available.
To ensure implementation of all these new requirements, training and drills will obviously play an important role.
3.3 Responsibilities of Contracting Governments
Under SOLAS chapter XI-2 and part A of the Code Contracting Governments can establish Designated Authorities within Government to undertake their security responsibilities under the Code. Governments or Designated Authorities may also delegate the undertaking of certain responsibilities to Recognized Security Organizations (RSOs) outside Government.Additional guidance is provided in MSC/Circ.1074 on “Interim Guidelines for the authorization of RSOs”.
Now is UAE a "Contracting Gub'Mint", or is the US?
Your example is a joke. Saudi Arabia's ruler owns 5% of the shares in Newscorp. Saudi Arabia does not own Fox News. Plus Fox News is not responsible for managing every major port on the east coast. I am also not aware of this Danish partner you refer to. They are a small part of the equation if they exist because DP World is a huge company that does not need a partner to buy this British company
The people who are supporting this deal have terrible judgment. Chertoff and Rice are incompetent.
Never mind...I saw it. The US is the "Contracting Gub'Mint".
BUT...
3.5 The Port Facility
Contracting Governments will have to undertake a Port Facility Security Assessment (PFSA) of its Port Facilities. This assessment is to be undertaken by the Contracting Government, a Designated Authority, or the Recognized Security Organization. The Port Facility Security Assessments will need to be reviewed over time. The results of the Port Facility Security Assessment have to be approved by the Government or Designated Authority and will be used to help determine which Port Facilities are required to appoint a Port Facility Security Officer (PFSO). The responsibilities of the Port Facility Security Officers are defined in the ISPS Code, as are the requirements for the training they require and the drills they will be responsible for undertaking. The Port Facility Security Officer is responsible for the preparation of the Port Facility Security Plan (PFSP). Like the Ship Security Plan, the Port Facility Security Plan shall indicate the minimum operational and physical security measures of the Port Facility, which shall always be applied (security level 1). The plan should also indicate the additional, or intensified, security measures the Port Facility can take to move to security level 2. Furthermore, the plan should indicate the possible preparatory actions the Port Facility could take to allow prompt response to the instructions that may be issued by the authorities responding at security level 3 to a security incident or threat.
The Port Facility Security Plan has to be approved by, or on behalf of, the port facility’s Contracting Government. The Port Facility Security Officer must ensure that its provisions are implemented and monitor the continuing effectiveness and relevance of the approved plan, including commissioning independent internal audits of the application of the plan. The effectiveness of the plan may also be tested by the relevant Authorities. The Port Facility Security Assessment covering the Port Facility may also be reviewed. All these activities may lead to amendments to the approved plan. Major amendments to an approved plan will have to be submitted to the approving authority for re-approval.
This just gets worse and worse!
But the State Department said that they were a vital ally in the War on Terrorism. We must all be idiots.
I love King Abdullah of Jordan but I don't want him in our ports.
Only Americans will protect America.
People don't realize how much the Government relies on the private sector to maintain national security. We would not want Dubai managing our banking system, or our food supplies.
US Customs depends on on port managers for shipping manifests and various other pieces of information, in order to determine what is and isn't worth searching. This company will have more ability than anyone to smuggle weapons into this country.
US Customs sees shipping manifests on the foreign exporting side of the pond way before the manifests get to the port managers on our side.
You do realize that the document you've cited is put out by some foreign organization and is not DHS procedure. Right?
Only idiots never question elected reps, MSM information and yes even posters on the internet.
All three should be subject to questions, right?
Hmm...you Do realize...
Maritime security is an integral part of IMO's responsibilities. A comprehensive security regime for international shipping entered into force on 1 July 2004.
And in FAQ's...
Who has to comply with the ISPS Code?
The ISPS Code is part of SOLAS so compliance is mandatory for the 148 Contracting Parties to SOLAS - see Status of Conventions complete list for list of SOLAS Contracting Governments.
Oh, and by checking...the US IS a Contracting Party!
Gee, the fun you have when you READ the info...
Thank God for people like Frank Gaffney.
Who has to comply with the ISPS Code? The ISPS Code is part of SOLAS so compliance is mandatory for the 148 Contracting Parties to SOLAS - see Status of Conventions complete list for list of SOLAS Contracting Governments. Oh, and by checking...the US IS a Contracting Party! Gee, the fun you have when you READ the info...
Hmmm.
You do understand that SOLAS compliance doesn't preclude the DHS on its own initiative above and beyond SOLAS, instituting its own rules to its own government agencies that doesn't rely on what a bunch of foreigners say?
That would be using common sense which is fun to use when you -- read.
Get back to me when your head's unstuck...
Again...the doc I linked to are the SOLAS guidelines that each Contracting Gub'Mint HAS to at least meet! They can be exceeded, but these are the MINIMUM requirements each "Contracting Gub'Mint" must comply with!
If not, why is the US a "Contracting Gub'Mint"? Why bother?
I guess reading isn't enough for some 'Bots...they need that Daily Fax to be told how to think!
Again...the doc I linked to are the SOLAS guidelines that each Contracting Gub'Mint HAS to at least meet!
Finally you get it. Each contracting government has to at least meet guidelines. Each government can exceed guidelines.
My first above comment stands as correct all the while I had to put up with your insults.
Get back to me when your head's unstuck...
Stick yours...up yours...
DPWorld has no say...
DPWorld can supply all the security in wants. DHS is not required to rely on DPWorld for the security of the port.
Simple logic really.
Any security that "Exceeds" the guidelines will NOT invalidate the OTHER regs that need to be met.
So, you clueless agumentative 'Bot...these things must STILL be done!
port facilities, the requirements will include:
• port facility security plans; and
• port facility security officers.
In addition the requirements for ships and for port facilities will include:
• monitoring and controlling access;
• monitoring the activities of people and cargo; and
• ensuring that security communications are readily available.
So, DP World will have access to DHS OP Plans and SOPs! Yeah, I LOVE an Islamazi Terrorist Nation and Company having access to such info, and the ability to put key people in key areas is another gem!
Like ALL 'Bots, you need a Glass Bellybutton to see the daily Talking Points, and when you all speak, I can smell what you had for dinner yesterday!
Sure.
Dumbo. The DHS draws up a set of plans that the terminal operator can see and use. It doesn't logically follow that the DHS has to turn over any classified national security plans to the terminal operator.
In addition the requirements for ships and for port facilities will include: • monitoring and controlling access; • monitoring the activities of people and cargo; and • ensuring that security communications are readily available. So, DP World will have access to DHS OP Plans and SOPs! Yeah, I LOVE an Islamazi Terrorist Nation and Company having access to such info, and the ability to put key people in key areas is another gem!
The same non-sequitur conclusion drawn by you.
Like ALL 'Bots, you need a Glass Bellybutton to see the daily Talking Points, and when you all speak, I can smell what you had for dinner yesterday!
"Clueless...bots...talking points, glass bellybuttons...blah, blah, blah. You sound desperate. You really say nothing.
You're a dope...and a rude one at that.
Down at the November 4, 2004 snippet are links to the International Maritime Organization website. Admiralty law, gold fringe, tinfoil, and all that.
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.