Posted on 02/21/2006 12:32:20 PM PST by Brian Mosely
ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE (AP) — President Bush says the deal allowing an Arab company to take over six major U.S. seaports should go forward and he will veto any bill that would stop it.
Can I quote you on that?
Someone on another thread theorized that it might be a payback for allowing our use of the UAE in 2003 when we invaded Iraq.
I'll just take your responses to indicate that you are unable back up your claim about how unsafe it is.
Which I already knew because it's utterly false.
I'm listening to a conservative talk show host named Bruce Elliott in Baltimore on WBAL and he's talking about this issue, if you're interested.
http://www.wbal.com/shows/elliott/
ah the "deacon" switching the subject. you just said they posed no threat, i proved otherwise....unless you want to tell me CAIR is a good organization? not to mention they were one of only three governments who recognized the taliban.
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/business/2005/December/business_December147.xml§ion=business&col=
DP World to invest in port security
DUBAI — DP World, currently in a huge buying spree, is planning to invest in security issues at the ports and terminals it owns and manages around the world, according to a senior company official.
also, itzlzha has plenty of info im posting here (dont care if you're interested because this will be my last post to you, Stinkspur):
-------
this is for all who are interested in the DP World fiasco...
Sweetjustusnow posted here an interesting link...http://www.imo.org/Newsroom/mainframe.asp?topic_id=551.
If you go to the site, the last link down the main column is called New Security Measures for the International Shipping Community. Article by Mr. H. Hesse and Mr. N. Charalambous, published in WMU Journal of Marine Affairs, 2004, Vol 3, No 2, pp 123 - 138 Information Resources on maritime. This is a pdf. file.
There is a VERY interesting paragraph..for all who think that DP World will have no say in Port Secutity or Other DHS ops...
The new requirements form the international framework through which Governments, ships and port facilities can co-operate to detect and deter acts, which threaten security in the maritime transport sector. In order to determine what security measures are appropriate, Governments must assess the threat and evaluate the risk of a potential unlawful act. The ISPS Code provides a standardized, consistent framework for managing risk and permitting the meaningful exchange and evaluation of information between Contracting Governments, companies, port facilities, and ships. The requirements also include provisions,which establish the right of a State to impose control and compliance measures on ships in or intending to visit its ports. It also provides for Contracting Governments to take further action when relevant requirements are not met or when there are other clear grounds for taking such action. In addition, where a risk of attack has been identified, the coastal State concerned shall advise the ships concerned of the current security level; of any security measures that should be put in place by the ships concerned to protect themselves from attack; and of the security measures that the coastal State has decided to put in place.
IOW, the damn DP World WILL be involved in Security aspects, and have access to the Gub'Mint SOP's and plans of Action for possible Threats...INCLUDING TERRORIST!!!! DP World will not just be some shell or piggybank as some here accuse!
Just an FYI....with a BIG nod to Sweetjustusnow for an AWESOME find!
(http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1581900/posts?page=199#199)
__________________________________________________________
I have only hit the TIP of the iceberg...try these little paragraphs...
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?
(http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1581900/posts?page=201#201) ____________________________________________________________________
Now is UAE a "Contracting Gub'Mint", or is the US?
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!
(http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1581900/posts?page=204#204)
_____________________________________________________________
Cboldt, remember how I was still concerned about David Sandborn's appointment to run MARAD, the US Maritime Administration? I think my worries were well founded...
O First, in addition to the six affected ports mentioned above, two others would also have part of their operations managed by DP World – on behalf of none other than the U.S. Army. Under a newly extended contract, the owner of P and O will manage the movement of heavy armor, helicopters and other military materiel through the Texas seaports of Beaumont and Corpus Christie. How much would our enemies like to be able to sabotage such shipments?
O Second, while advocates of the stealthy CFIUS decision-making process point to the involvement of the Defense Department in its DP World decision, it is unclear at what level this bizarre proposition was reviewed in the Pentagon. Many top jobs remain unfilled by presidential appointees. Past experience suggests the job may have fallen to lower-level career bureaucrats who give priority to maintaining good relations with their foreign “clients,” like the UAE.
I do believe MARAD is involved in the Military movement aspect...DP World got it's players into position well in advance of it's moves!
(http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1582373/posts?page=230#230)
___________________________________________________________
... remember how I was still concerned about David Sandborn's appointment to run MARAD, the US Maritime Administration? I think my worries were well founded...
I've looked at ALL the nominations with more care, ever since the Miers nomination. The President has made a few clunkers, and those have a pattern or appearing to be cronies or payback favors. I figure Sanborn could be a "follow the money" nomination - the usual insider ball.
I do believe MARAD is involved in the Military movement aspect...DP World got it's players into position well in advance of it's moves!
MARAD is indeed involved in the military and merchant marine aspect - with merchant marine comprising US flag vessels that can be pressed into military cargo duty as needs require.
Gaffney's thoughts are well founded - but Sanborn isn't the direct "insider who now gets to oversee his former employer as the new commercial port operator" that I jumped to conclusion he was. That is, except for the two military ports Gaffney notes in his first numbered point.
Without knowing the nature of the contracts, I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that they fatally compromise security. They DO create cash flow to UAE.
See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1581759/posts?page=82#82 for a parallel to the merchant marine.
Thanks for the ping to this article - I probably would have skipped past it otherwise.
(http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1582373/posts?page=304#304)
___________________________________________________________
Without knowing the nature of the contracts, I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that they fatally compromise security. They DO create cash flow to UAE.
By itself, I'd be in agreement with you, and willing to just say it "Smells Funny".
Given the whole of the way this fiasco has played out...it looks to me like a BIG TIME game of Corporate Chess, and DP World has players in a LOT of areas...some key!
I'm not willing to give this one a pass...I suggest we "follow the $$$"! I find it too "convenient" that Snow oversees the Council approving it...now we find it's not just the 6 East Coast Ports, but 2 Texas Military Ports that Sandborn has jurisdiction over! These Ports were not in the discussion...until now.
Too many coincidences...
Stellar, look at Cboldt's post 304. Seems I was right connecting Gaffney's article and Sandborn at Maritime, and there MAY be more to this.
The investigation continues...I'm curious as to who takes it in the shorts over this...my best guess is Snow!
(http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1582373/posts?page=308#308)
Is that why DPW operates ports in Sidney?
Simple: they don't want to know.
Looks like all the Bushbots have returned after enjoying a nice supper. Not one of you can honestly say that you wouldn't be spouting the exact opposite opinion on this issue if the president promoting it was a Democrat.
Being a Muslim country that runs the company that will get the port contracts...will they have a problem shipping my bacon/pork/pigs feet/and pig blood products?
Just wondering.
JEDI.
Didn't say anything about Citi Bank..
I am, very much. Thank you for the link. I hope his show is just starting because I can;t link to it for another hour.
Where did you get Tom Ridge? He says the administration hasn't handled this well, but he's not opposed to the DPW deal.
Is my post correct or is it wrong ?
Of course you didn't. That's my point, you omitted their participation.
LOL i just called him that in my post...GMTA
They won't be managing the port operations...
Big deal. If we don't do business with any country that has an issue with some of its citizens being terrorists, we wouldn't do business with most of the world including ourselves.
I don't remember too many citibank hijackers.
No. The money flowed THROUGH the UAE, just as it flowed THROUGH Citibank.
You gonna get on Citibank's case, too?
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.