Posted on 02/20/2006 7:28:25 AM PST by standingfirm
WASHINGTON — Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is defending the Bush administration's review of an international shipping deal two days after one company in the Port of Miami sued to prevent an Arab-owned firm from taking over port operations.
Meanwhile, lawmakers also are considering legislation to stop foreign-owned companies from running U.S. ports.
Chertoff on Sunday said the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, had carefully reviewed the Dubai Ports World purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which runs commercial operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
"We make sure there are assurances in place, in general, sufficient to satisfy us that the deal is appropriate from a national security standpoint," Chertoff told ABC's "This Week."
That doesn't sit well with Miami firm Continental Stevedoring & Terminals Inc., a subsidiary of Ellery & Company Inc. Representatives from that company asked a judge to block the takeover of P&O,
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
>THIS IS WRONG>
YOU ARE RIGHT! I have had severe reservations about Chertoff from the beginning. Watch this one verrrry carefully.
As I see it, we are currently at war with Islam. Would it make sense to lease a port terminal or two to a German or Japanese outfit during WW2? Likewise it doesn't make to cut with deal with a muslim nation.
And if that's hysteria and ignorance, then so be it.
Chertoff - this is the same guy who said Brown and FEMA were doing a good job after Katrina.
That's probably what the apologists for this insanity might say, I'd call it common sense.
Port and terminal operators may not presently have a mandatory responsibility for screening cargo, but:
(1) the lack of a mandatory responsibility does not mitigate our need to assure that operations are in in fact being conducted by trustworthy companies and individuals;
(2) operations and security are inherently linked; and
(3) mandatory rules regarding port and terminal operator security compliance and cooperation are likely in the near future.
See below (from: http://www.house.gov/transportation/cgmt/03-13-02/koch.html):
"Government officials have clearly stated their concern over the possibility that our international transportation system might be used as a conduit for terrorism. Accordingly, governments must devise and implement effective strategies to reduce and manage such risks, and carriers, shippers, ports, marine terminals, importers and third parties need to support what is necessary to achieve those objectives."
. . .
"Marine Terminals: The security of ports and marine terminals in this country was analyzed in the Report of the Interagency Commission on Crime and Security in U.S. Seaports (Fall 2000) and found wanting. This issue served as an impetus for the Senate legislation (S.1214) on this issue, which we have supported."
"The Coast Guard, using existing statutory and regulatory authority and working with terminal owners and operators, has already implemented certain measures to increase security in and around waterfront facilities."
"Earlier this year, the U.S. Coast Guard Commander for the Pacific Area issued guidelines for the individual Captains of the Port for the inspection and maintenance of adequate security measures for waterfront facilities in the Pacific Area. Developed in cooperation with industry stakeholders, these guidelines are intended for all types of maritime terminals and facilities. They cover areas such as physical property security, personnel security, passenger security, vehicle access and rail security, and are differentiated according to three risks levels."
"As guidelines, they do not replace or supersede existing regulations. Rather they are intended to assist the individual Captains of the Port and the operator of a facility in evaluating the security of that facility and taking corrective measures, if necessary. The guidelines are a constructive first step, but further actions are needed. For example, these guidelines do not address the issue of credentials and access controls for people at marine terminals."
"The U.S. Coast Guard included in its submission to the IMO a proposal that all port facilities be required to develop and maintain security plans, and that these plans would have to be approved by the government in whose jurisdiction the facility is located according to internationally agreed standards. In addition to this proposal, the Coast Guard has also proposed that IMO agree to a mandatory requirement that every port undergo, by the government in whose jurisdiction it is located, periodic port vulnerability assessments based on internationally agreed vulnerability assessment standards."
"We fully support the efforts of the Coast Guard to raise enhanced terminal security at the IMO. The Coast Guard has also begun the process of preparing to conduct vulnerability assessments of U.S. ports, and, towards that objective, is developing a so-called “Model Port” security concept."
"Personnel: We support legislative and Department of Transportation efforts to establish a national credentialing program, with uniform, minimum federal standards for credentialing, with a federal background check process using criminal history and national security data, and “smart card” technology for the credentialing of appropriate transportation workers. It should cover people with access to restricted marine terminal areas and to vessels, the truckers hauling the container, and other security sensitive positions."
"America’s seaports should have systems to ensure and record that only approved people who are supposed to be there are there, and only when they are supposed to be there."
. . .
"We also support the Coast Guard’s initiative at the IMO to establish an international credentialing and background check system for seafarers of all nations. The Coast Guard estimates that 200,000 seafarers a year come to the United States. The agency’s IMO proposal is a good-faith proposal to establish an internationally accepted system that would provide enhanced security and ensure the desired freedom of movement for seafarers."
>We can deal with the unions internally<
The unions are laced with, if not the mafia, then the Communists, which are, contrary to contemporary thought, long from gone - Witness Putin selling uranium to Iran. Communism has found a good bedfellow!
And THIS IS the point.
How comfortable about would advocates of Dubai ownership be if Al Qaeda were the port owners instead -- EVEN IF US Customs and Border Protection screens all cargo and all parties involved are subordinate to their orders?
Oversights happen, which mean shiite happens -- especially when Muslims are involved.
Right on both counts but at the moment I see handing over the ports to Muslim fanatics a far greater threat. We can control the criminal elements, most of whom are in management within the unions internally but I'm not so sure about those from Middle Eastern countries.
You dont even know how the door works in order to claim it's going to be unlocked.
I say that not a moral judgement on you.
There are so many parties involved with an international shipment that anyone smuggling anything in this country WHICH REQUIRES THE CONTRABAND TO STOLEN AT THE PORT is a plan frought with 100000000 complications. No one would scheme in such a way.
The Port Operator has no influence over the degree in which Customs inspects any shipment. And since no one except Customs screens shipments there's no advantage you get by being a Port Operator.
The easiest way to get contraband out of the port, is to declare your cargo with an in-land port of entry (say, St Louis). Customs will issue a bond, the ocean carrier will send thier trucker to the port and the container leaves the terminal.
I had thought the deal involved taking over contracts for management of the ports. But on Rush this morning, the discussion indicated actual ownership of significant port facilities is involved.
>not so sure about those from Middle East countries<
Nor I, however, allowing outsourcing jobs, and joining the WTO, NAFTA and GAT it is obvious this administration, as the last three administrations, believes that Americans are not capable of doing the job!
This ownership does not imply authority over cargo screening, nor does it imply that it controls labor.
Most of the container ports on the East Coast and Gulf are ultimately managed by USMX. USMX has one contract with the ILA dock union that covers the enter area of coverage.
The function of the Port Operator is to be the coordinator between the Shipping Lines and the Union providing the labor.
The Shipping Lines tell the Port Operator which ships are coming and the amount of containers that need to be handled and how many "gangs" of labor they need. The Port Operator tells the Union there x number of people for how ever number of gangs will be needed for any shift. The dock worker goes to the Union dispatch hall and gets his assignment.
It's not like a Port Operator (who is basically a glorified vendor) can come in an errect a garrison.
geeshhh...It's not about our ignorance of shipping. It's about selling our souls to the devil for a few dollars more.
We don't care how great they are and how uninvolved they will be...we don't want them buying our ports. Get it?
I believe the UAE company was awarded the management operations and security contract for the ports.
"We don't want them buying our ports"
Speak for yourself. "They" already "own" most of them. Not that you noticed before or even know what it means.
So yes, it's almost ALL about your ignorance and emotionalism.
I'm a 30 year italian-american born in Chicago. Get it?
I'm not sure that I understand your point in saying that port and terminal operators are somehow free from responsibilities for security. First, they are not free from such responsibilities. Port and terminal operators are universally regarded as integral links in port security. The Canadian PIP and US Customs CSI programs both have initiatives for expanded cooperation and integration of operators into the procedures for port security. Operations and effective security simply cannot be seperated as if one is unrelated to the other.
Second, alliances with trustworthy operators are essential to the overall security picture. Operators themselves recognize this, and hence are generally cooperative with proposed "first-line" self-policing and mandatory reporting requirements. No one is under the illusion that rogue operators are acceptable because "security is someones else's responsibility."
That's probably the most upsetting fact coming out of this administration. If Bush's guest worker program passes what American workers there are at those ports will be fair game to fire and replace with cheap labor directly from the Middle East. And since immigration laws are rarely enforced we'll have no idea who those people are.
Italian Americans aren't generally considered prime terrorism suspects, and no, "they" (being the UAE or any other regime with a history of terrorism funding and transit) do not already own most of our ports.
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.