Posted on 02/17/2006 3:43:01 PM PST by outofhere2
Michael Savage is talking to Chuck Schumer at this very minute.
The "operator" doesn't have nearly the amount of control over things as you think. You can't get a subcontractor inside the port gates without having prior approval from the authority that controls the port itself and is responsible for its security, and it is becoming increasingly onerous for truckers, and container handlers from off-site locations who need to acces areas of the port to move these things around.
. . . learning the mechanics regarding which ships are likely to be targets for inspection based on observing patterns of how DHS and the coast guard operates, etc.
That's a possibility, but a terrorist doesn't need to spend $6.8 billion to acquire a major global corporation to get this kind of information.
APM/Maersk also has their own terminal at Port Newark/Elizabeth -- which I believe is the largest of the seven terminals.
Thanks! :-)
You are wrong. The controlling company does not have any control of subcontractors
Container Vessels aren't profiled for inspection unless Intelligence would give cause for a specific reason.
US Customs inspects cargo.
The companies who operate the vessels usually aren't the same folks who work the Terminal.
The selection process that US Customs is comprised of knowns and unknowns. Certain cargos are always inspected. If a particular shipper or consignee is on the Bill of Lading that might prompt an inspection, etc..
These decisions are made by a computer, not by some guy pacing the harbor.
If you think that the organization responsible for the nuts and bolts operation of the ports isn't in a position to influence the daily operating practices, and that influencing those practices would not put them in a position to deceive customs agents, we clearly disagree.
Thanks for your kind words, Antceecee!
Gee, step away for two hours, and you folks are still on this crap?
Here is another fact for you. Bush made his case in 2000 and 2004. He is not a follower, but your leader. He doesn't have to make his case to you or anyone else. Your comment reads like it was written by the White House press corps. There is so much rigidity based on so much ignorance that this thread is reaching DU level nonsense.
Port Operators have absolutely nothing to do with "deceiving Customs". That statement alone discredits you.
The reason why a Port Operator can't "deceive" Customs is because there is absolutely no reason for US Customs to consult with the port about any given shipment. Why? because the parties involved with the cargo have no involvement with the Port. A Customs guy would think a Stevedore was insane if the dockworker thought he had something of interest to say.
Of the 1000s of containers that are on any given vessel what in the world makes you think that dock workers know anything about any of them?
Customs receives the entire ship's manifest from the Ocean Carrier before the cargo leaves ground overseas.
The Consignee or his Customs Broker then has to work with US Customs on every single shipment. The Consignee has to file his US Entry and pay his Duty. Usually also has to provide the Commericial invoices and anything else.
Then the Consignee has to be sure he has the Ocean Bill of Lading so he can lay legal claim to the freight and then paying the shipping line.
So tell me... what the heck is the guy who drives the forklift that takes a container from a stack on a ship and puts it on a stack on teh groud have to do wiht that?
Please post your proof of this, or please admit it is only your opinion.
Very good summary.
It's also worth noting that these "alliance" relationships are one of the key reasons why so few maritime shipping conglomerates are U.S. companies. Most of them operate in these cartels like the one you just described, and this kind of relationship between these companies would likely be a violation of U.S. anti-trust law.
Thanks for posting that, Unmarked Package.
I agree - for this one time Chuckie is right.
And .. I noticed the guy at the podium is Coburn (R-OK). Coburn is a no-nonsense kind of guy - and if he's siding with Chuckie - this is a serious matter.
He has no proof. The United States Maritime Alliance controls the jobs at most ports on the East Coast of the US. And the workers at those ports are represented by the Int'l Longshoreman's Association (ILA).
In 2004 the USMA and the ILA signed a comprehensive labor contract with a term for 6 years, covering every port that ILA works in.. which is most of them from Maine to Houston.
A Port Operator is a vendor. It's laughable to think he's going to ripup the universal labor contract and start hiring his friends on the cheap.
It's funny for two reasons
1 - Like the ILA would allow that to happen.. they'd shut down the ports before giving inch of their contract back
2 - That the port would have the authortiy anyway.. it doesn't
Actually US Law specificially allows this.
It's my opinion. I thought that the fact that I posted it made it clear it was my opinion. My opinion is based on the fact that after working for private industry, cities, states and the Federal government, the controlling entity usually has some say in who does the hiring. Please post your proof that the controlling company doesn't have any influence over who gets hired.
That statement alone proves you don't have a clue.
Does Michael's plan involve alien spaceships or eugenics? Because everytime I hear his shrill, dumb yelling and screaming I don't hear much of a plan about anything except how to bitch, moan and complain>
One can completely disagree with some of Bush's stupid plans. But Michael Savage IS what the libs accuse Limbaugh of being--loud, emotional, endlessly insulting and completely unrealistic about the workings of those of us who live on the planet Earth.
If it does, then I think that's a fairly recent development. I'm not talking about the overall "strategic alliance" relationship, but the way the companies within an alliance fix prices among themselves on specific routes. Why wouldn't a price-fixing arrangement run afoul of anti-trust law?
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.