Posted on 03/04/2006 12:31:35 PM PST by FairOpinion
"Has FR been invaded?"
===
Based on the posts and responses to the occasional polls, my guess is that about 10% of the posters are not conservatives, but anti-conservatives who stay just enough under the radar, to avoid being banned.
(On a different, but related topic, see my tagline. I started to use that, because there are some posters who post on the CA threads, that it's better to get a leftist Dem governor, than a Republican, all the while telling us how conservative they are)
Would you have preferred Kerry or Gore?
Is this the same DHS lawyer leader that thinks open borders and immigration is a great idea, and a border fence is bad idea?
Ya...I thought it was the same guy...
Guess no one can venture to say why the DHS itself is putting out the "P&O/DPW operating ports" language, instead of saying it will manage *some* TERMINAL operations where it leases those terminals.
I do see that DHS is only counting *public* terminals in its listing. For what reason, I don't know. It makes me a little nervous to think that the DHS thinks only the public terminals are under its auspices. There are many, many more privately owned, leased and operated terminals in each of these ports than publicly owned ones--not to mention that there are many more US ports where DPW will have operations.
Also strange is that it included the Port of Houston in its statement at all, since DPW doesn't lease any terminals or other facilities at this port; it simply contracts its services throughout the port. It will not be managing any terminal activities at all in Houston and thus the Port of Houston was not listed in the original six ports in *question.*
I'm hoping it was gubmint misspeak or tunnel vision, OR this pertains somehow to just the Dubai portion of DPW's management, and not the "new" US division which will help to satisfy the congressional questions.
Yes, and the loyal opposition know we're right. Must be quite a predicament for them.
_________________
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2005/Nov/UF-US_Customs.htm
A recent report by a Congressional watchdog agency, the Government Accountability Office, for example, criticizes the quality of CBP’s detection equipment and asserts that staffing imbalances have prevented the agency from inspecting many U.S.-bound shipments.
As a result of this system, CBP officers in Baltimore scan only about 14 to 15 percent of the containers passing through their port, Shannon said. “We wouldn’t want to scan all of the containers on a ship,” he said. “That would be a waste of time.”
Once CSI is implemented in 50 ports, approximately 90 percent of all trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific cargo imported into the United States will be subjected to pre-screening.”
This system—developed under a $9 million, four-year contract awarded in 2003 to SETA Corporation, of McLean, Va.—uses risk-based analysis to decide which containers should not be loaded aboard the vessel at the foreign port, which need to be inspected at either the foreign or the U.S port, and which are low-risk and can shipped without further review.
An April 2005 report by the GAO labeled these efforts as “promising,” but raised concerns about CBP’s “ability to achieve its ultimate goal of improved cargo security.”
Richard Stana, director of GAO’s Homeland Security and Justice Team, told the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations that CBP had been unable to target all U.S.-bound shipments from CSI ports because of staffing imbalances. “As a result, 35 percent of these shipments were not targeted [for] overseas inspection,” he said.
In addition, Stana said, CBP has not established minimum technical requirements for the detection capability of inspection equipment used as part of CSI. Participating ports use various types of equipment to inspect containers, and the capabilities of such equipment can vary, he noted.
“Given these conditions, CBP has limited assurance that inspections conducted under CSI are effective at detecting and identifying terrorist weapons of mass destruction,” Stana said.
In response, CBP said it agreed with the GAO’s findings and proposed to reconsider
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/ksgnews/Features/opeds/043005_zenko.htm
You are quoting an oped.
Let me repeat. You are taking the word of editorials and the MSM over the official statement of the DHS.
It should be prosecutable for any elected official to highlight and describe weaknesses in our defense systems-especially in a time of war.
"You really believe this? Amazing. "
Hell yes, I do.
A couple of months ago,Biden gave the exact time and route of his Amtrak train and said it was ripe for a terror attack.
Hillary did the same thing in regards to the NYC subway system and ports.
I don't understand why it is necessary to signal to the enemy exactly how many cargo holds are examined and how.
Both of them have the luxury of calling the White House and other agencies to express their concerns-in private.
Holding press conferences and describing in detail the specific vulnerablities of our nation, only helps one group-the terrorists.
Which, I have no doubt, is the aim of the Democrats and the media.
There's a balance to be struck. The best defense is a strong offense -- on that we may agree.
Both this post and post 87 were from April of last year and the data used for the analysis is at least 11 months old. How much progress has there been since then?
That's posts 87 and 88.
I have been a critic, and I really don't think the critics have drowned out the valuable info here. I've been looking for facts. Facts will change my mind more than a high and mighty attitude. That is why I thanked FO for the post. It contained some good info that made me feel a little more secure. When all is said and done, that is my main concern.
OK, just so we're clear.
No elected official should now ever discuss our border problem, our ports security, or in any other way publicly point out ANY deficiencies in our national security.
That's insane, and a recipe for fascism - jailing anybody who questions the government.
You got this port deal correct. Let me describe the deal by using the airline industry. For example, British Airlines flys into Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, Texas and docks at their terminal. The airport owns the terminal and British Airlines is leasing the terminal. Bye the way, all security is performed by Americans. Along comes UAE and buys out British Airlines. Nothing changes because British Airlines stills flys into Bush Airport except the ownership of British Airlines is now UAE. This is the same for the port deal.
For everyone crying and whining about the budgets they should remember the "700%" increase in funding for I'm assuming the ports alone.
Tax cuts that everyone wanted plus security we all need add in Iraq and everything else most want and there you go.
"Tax cuts that everyone wanted plus security we all need add in Iraq and everything else most want and there you go."
===
Excellent point. People "want to have their cake and eat it too" and don't realize that "there is not such thing as a free lunch".
"OK, just so we're clear "
Apparently we're not.
I'll try again.
Elected officials should not be discussing, in public, the specifics of vulnerabilities.
The operative word is specifics.
If you're asking City Hall for more police protection in your neighborhood, do you also publicly annnounce that you don't have a security system ,your back window is broken and the house is empty every day from 8 until 6 ?
July 28, 2004
Biden: ..We have 101 nuclear power plants in the United States.
None of them have federal protection.
We’re in a situation where today if you got on an Amtrak Train from Boston to New York, you’d hit New York, there’s more people in the tunnels that were built in 1917 with no ventilation,
no escape and no lighting underneath that New York City as we speak today,
sitting in car seats of trains than there are in five packed 747’s.
May 6,2004
Representative Stephen F. Lynch, Democrat of Massachusetts, after describing the lack of security at Boston's South Shore train station , added that it was the busiest in the country and all the employees he spoke to at the station " don't know what they are supposed to do in case of a terrorist attack."
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.