Posted on 03/04/2006 12:31:35 PM PST by FairOpinion
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1583009/posts
Flashback - December 13, 2004: Dubai, U.A.E., Joins U.S. Container Security Initiative (State Dept.) US Department of State ^ | December 13. 2004
Posted on 02/21/2006 2:43:48 PM PST by new yorker 77
Becomes first Mideast port to participate in U.S. program
The United Arab Emirates has joined the U.S. Container Security Initiative (CSI) to help secure maritime cargo shipments against the threat of terrorism.
Somehow, I'm thinking, that as the container is either being loaded or offloaded, there is the potential to hit it with either X rays, or some other special electrical rays.
I'm envisioning an electronic box around the crane and its container, that can "look" inside to determine the cargo, (or detonate it), whilst the cargo is between the ground and the ship, either way.
Inspection without holding up cargo load/unload timing.
DP World will operate at the following terminals within the six United States’ ports currently operated by the United Kingdom company, P & O:
o Baltimore - 2 of 14 total
o Philadelphia - 1 of 5 (does not include the 1 cruise vessel terminal)
o Miami - 1 of 3 (does not include the 7 cruise vessel terminals)
o New Orleans - 2 of 5 (does not include the numerous chemical plant terminals up and down the Mississippi River, up to Baton Rouge)
o Houston – 4 of 12 (P&O work alongside other stevedoring* contractors at the terminals)
o Newark/Elizabeth – 1 of 4
o (Note: also in Norfolk - Involved with stevedoring activities at all 5 terminals, but not managing a specific terminal.)
*Stevedoring – provides labor, carries physical loading and unloading of cargo."
I know for a fact that the Port of Houston alone has 150 terminals and several others of these have at least 100. Why does this say "12" terminals for Houston, as an example?
What are they talking about? And why are they continuing to say "ports currently operated" by P&O?
You really believe this? Amazing. So when we get a dem President, our side won't be able to discuss border security, or ANY OTHER aspect of security, without fear of prosecution? I'm often shocked at how much power people here want to give the federal government.
http://www.irconnect.com/poha/pages/news_releases.html?d=94774
Fact Sheet: Implication of the Proposed Acquisition of P&O Ports by Dubai Ports World on the Port of Houston Authority
HOUSTON, Feb. 23, 2006 -- The recent announcement of plans by the Dubai Ports World (DP World) to purchase P&O Ports (P&O) will not have an impact on any of the facilities or operations of the Port of Houston Authority (PHA).
The PHA is a political subdivision chartered by the state of Texas. It owns and either operates or leases 12 public facilities. The PHA does not own or operate private facilities.
Specifically in Houston, P&O leases space at the PHA's Barbours Cut Container Terminal for container and chassis repair and container storage. At the PHA's Turning Basin Terminal, P&O maintains a freight handling assignment and is licensed to provide stevedore services. P&O does not own or operate public (PHA) facilities.
P&O, a private company headquartered in London, is involved in worldwide container terminal operations and stevedore services for the maritime industry.
The Port of Houston comprises more than 150 public (PHA) and private terminals along the 53-mile Houston Ship Channel. The port's private terminals include several U.S.-based, foreign-based and multi-national corporations. Approximately 85% of cargo that moves through Houston's port is handled at private facilities. A large portion of the port's private facilities are engaged in production, refining and transportation operations related to the global oil, gas and chemical industries.
PORT SECURITY
All port facilities in the U.S. that are engaged in commercial activities across interstate lines or international borders -- whether public or private, domestic or foreign -- are subject to state and federal security statutes as well as the rules and regulations of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies.
The federal government takes the lead in protecting America's ports. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, primarily through the activities of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the U.S. Coast Guard, runs many programs to secure U.S. ports. The U.S. Coast Guard is responsible for maritime security and reviewing and approving security plans for vessels, port facilities and port areas which are required by the MTSA. Customs and Border Protection is responsible for cargo security, and screens and inspects cargo entering the U.S. through every U.S. port.
Other cargo security programs include:
-- Container Security Initiative (inspection of U.S. import cargo
by CBP prior to leaving the outbound foreign port)
-- Use of radiation detection equipment to screen for weapons of
mass destruction
-- Use of other non-intrusive inspection devices
-- Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT), which
encourages maritime stakeholders to verify their security
measures.
The Port Security Grant program and the pending implementation of the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) are also important parts of America's port security portfolio to provide layered security.
While the federal government takes the lead on waterside and cargo security, overall security is a shared responsibility with port authorities, facility and vessel operators, and state and local law enforcement agencies providing additional security. The Maritime Transportation Security Act also establishes local security committees to evaluate and make improvements in each port.
In general, port infrastructure throughout the U.S. and around the world consists of diverse collections of docks, warehouses, and terminals. For the past two decades, it has been a common maritime industry practice for private port facilities in some countries to be operated by organizations that are based in other countries. This is widely regarded as the nature of trade and commerce in today's global economy.
For more information, please visit www.portofhouston.com .
Oh Well, a newbie arguing that only 5% gets inspected against the 100%, I'd speculate one more Kerry campaign worker joined FR om 2-18-2006!!!! I'll believe the DHS, thank you.
"You don't need "cutting edge technology" to look at paperwork."
Yes, you do. Data mining systems.
Yeah, I know, I used to write some of those.
I would like to know what the find. Have they ever found dangerous items being shipped into our counrty?
"I would like to know what the find. Have they ever found dangerous items being shipped into our counrty?"
===
I have no knowledge of it, buy my guess would be that they have indeed.
Remember when Cheney kept being in an "undisclosed location" for the longest time? My guess would be that we knew of some loose nukes in the hand of terrorists, and presumably we found them. Of course that doesn't mean there aren't more, but we may have averted an immediate "clear and present" danger/catastrophy.
The problem with the WoT, that the Bush administration can't trumpet the successes, because that would give info away to the terrorists.
It is about Labor Unions renegoiating a Contract and their strangle hold on the Democrat Party. There is NOTHING factual to the hysteria. It is all made up Democrat Election Year PR that too many on OUR side are falling all overthemselves to echo.
I think what it's about is trying to present Bush as "weak on terror" to help Dems in 2006. Unfortunately the Republican Senators and Congressmen, since a lot of them are up for re-election, jumped on the Dem bandwagon, to avoid being presented as "weak on terror", instead of standing up and explaining reality to the American people.
That's not exactly comfortable wording there, FO. "Screens ... using intelligence" sounds Amazing Kreskin-like. It does not mean direct visual inspection or x-ray screening, I'd bet.
No recourse to logic or facts so jump right to visual-aid personal attack. Nice, sweet, cute ... not.
Ignore the idiot-by-bad-choice of argument styles. You are right on this point.
I'm not the one using the (Depends what your definition of "is" is) Clinton gambit
He hasn't worked in a field where you have to do radiation-monitoring. I have. I am pretty damn sure I could fit up a container with a nuke inside that would show no detectable "stuff" except to an xray or visual inspection. JMHO.
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.