Posted on 02/27/2006 3:37:14 PM PST by Stellar Dendrite
A little-noticed quote buried in a Washington Times story last week shows that if Bush proceeds with his deal to lease ports to the United Arab Emirates, it will be the UAE that recommends what kind of security measures the port will be regulated under.
The February 22 article called "Bush Vows Port Deal Will Stand; Threatens to Veto Any Bill Killing It" contained a quote from Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. Jeff Carter. Carter told the Times that port security is handled by the Coast Guard, which oversees security plans submitted by facility operators and conducts planned and surprise inspections throughout the year.
This means, if UAE is granted the contract, it will be issuing their own advisory the Coast Guard that is ultimately responsible for the port.
During upcoming hearings, senators would do well to explore this facet of the deal and question the UAE's ability to mandate tough security measures upon themselves and press the Coast Guard to thoroughly vet previous recommendations from UAE.
A special thanks for this item goes to an eagle-eyed Washington Times reader that alerted Human Events to this alarming detail.
Miss Carpenter is Assistant Editor for HUMAN EVENTS
ping
ping
LOL - so, according to Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. Jeff Carter, port security is, in fact, handled by the Coast Guard, which conducts planned and surprise inspections throughout the year. Are you really thinking that the Coast Guard has no say about the "security plans submitted by facility operators"? You're not trying to say that the Coast Guard is taking orders from P&O currently, are you?
I like your tagline.
Thanks, me too :)
"You're not trying to say that the Coast Guard is taking orders from P&O currently, are you?"
LOL. Some of these "alarming details" just crack me up.
But so and so said these business operations have nothing to do with security! The Coast Guard provides it! Well, once in a while they take a looksee, isn't that good enough? LOL.
Whenever someone opens a commercial venture inside the MDZ the U.S. government does not go in a set up their internal facility security...that's not their job. Their job is to insure that the contractor is in compliance with those elements of security mandated to them by law.
In a case like this, the operator has a given period in which to submit their security plan and submit it for approval. Kind of like the shoe store in the mall having a process to lock the doors and night and turn off the ligths (they aren't responsible for Mall security).
This level of information can be obtained from just about any dock worker today.
They don't want those stinking A-Rabs owning stores in malls either, doncha know?
I bet they never get coffee at a 7/11 either.
LOL!
The silver lining here is that port security is finally front and center as a national security issue. I'm against this deal, but not because an Arab country is running port operations: this story just underlines how inconsistent and spotty our port security currently is. And yes, in a post 911 world, port security is a national security issue, and who was running the ports even a few years ago is now irrelevant.
They're grasping at straws. It might work better if they educated themselves on port operations first. But then again I haven't met anyone familiar with port operations who thought this was any big deal...other then the union dock workers of course.
Someone decipher this for me...please.
Believe it. Look to the (lack of) enforcement of the law on our southern border for the example of how tough security will be enforced. The guys on the line would love to enforce it to the letter, but their hands are tied by the higher-ups. With all this smooching up how wonderful the Dubai deal is, it looks to me like they (Dubai) have friends in high places who intend to give them this deal at any price. If Dubai is allowed to write their own rules (regarding security inspections), then those will be the rules. What shocks me is how many Freepers are justifying and supporting this deal. I think it stinks!
So, assuming we can only trust American-owned companies (putting aside how easy American-born terrorists could infiltrate them), how do you propose we go about kicking out every foreign-owned port terminal operator? Will they at least get their investment back?
Our economy would collapse overnight.
"it will be the UAE that recommends what kind of security measures the port will be regulated under."
They can "Recommend" all they want, but in the end US law, i.e. the Congress and the president, will set port security and DHS, Customs and the Coast Guard will implement that law. The UAE company will have no power over it. This is a non-story that ignores the significance of the word "recommend" to try to add furor to this story. The far right wing media is becoming as deceptive and slippery as the leftwing lapdog media.
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.