By: BK

BK — Sun, 10 Oct 2010 02:05:53 +0000

Merk,The problem I am having with this is that I am hearing and reading conflicting reports about what the port operators are responsible for.Some sources say port operators are not responsible for securing the ports. However, I have seen other reports that say once cargo is on the dock at the ports, the security for those shipments is the responsibility of the port operators. Sure, Customs and the Coast Guard can inspect any suspicious container on the docks, but the security for the overall facility is maintained by the operator.While that may not seem all that dangerous, I am more disturbed by what the port operators are privy to. The Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 “requires vessels and port facilities to conduct vulnerability assessments and develop security plans including passenger, vehicle and baggage screening procedures; security patrols; establishing restricted areas; personnel identification procedures; access control measures; and/or installation of surveillance equipment (Source: UPI).”However, that same act allows port operators to have access to the Coast Guard's plans for dealing with a terrorist incident…and that's what concerns me the most.Just today, it became known that the Coast Guard had concerns about security issues regarding the sale of the ports to DP World. Supposedly, those issues were addressed by the Bush administration to the point the Coast Guard was satisfied. But the fact the Coast Guard had those concerns when it is responsible for securing the ports is somewhat troubling.I know the UAE has been a U.S. ally in the war on terror, but there is widely reported evidence the UAE has had relatively strong ties with terrorists in the past. I am just not comfortable with part of our defense against terrorism being compromised in that way.Of course, as I type that, I realize the United States used to be friendly with Osama bin Laden so it might be hypocritical to say a country can't change its tune. However, in a post-9/11 world, putting a country like the UAE in charge of major U.S. ports seems to make little sense when you consider that country's past ties to terrorism.Again, though, I think it is wrong in these times to have the ports operated by any foreign entity. It just seems kind of perplexing to have all these U.S.-sanctioned entities (i.e., Coast Guard, Customs, etc.) oversee the security of incoming shipments…just so they can be unloaded onto what is essentially foreign-owned property before being distributed within the United States. In my mind, it just seems like an odd workflow.I mean, it's like the Coast Guard checking out a ship and then telling it to go to Canada or Mexico…and then trucking the shipments into the United States from there.OK…I am kidding about that. I'm just using exaggeration to kind of explain my point of view on that part of the issue.I'm all for free enterprise, but I just wonder if this isn't a time for the United States to take another look at its policy regarding port ownership.An even though Bush supposedly didn't know major U.S. ports were being sold to a UAE-run company, his reaction, to me, still smacked of the “I'll do whatever I want” attitude, which kind of reminds me of Master Shake from Aqua Teen Hunger Force. Hence, I will from this point on refer to Bush as President Shake.A U.S. president is supposed to listen to the people. And whether or not it is justified, a lot of his constituents do not seem to agree this ports deal with DP World should go through…or at least many want to know their concerns have been addressed. Knowing there is a firestorm brewing on this subject, though, Bush/Pres. Shake comes out and just says that the sale will go through no matter what because his administration approved it…instead of “sitting down” with the American people through a televised town hall or press conference to thoroughly explain everything.Is that too much to ask?

Comments on: Swim Equipment

By: BK