Bush will allow arab company to take over 6 major seaports

[TheEnforcer]

The company also is responsible for security asw ell and has the manifests, etc. It is NOT a risk worth taking, especially as some of the deal means that the UAE government has control as well.

[JR]

Originally Posted by TheEnforcer

The company also is responsible for security asw ell and has the manifests, etc. It is NOT a risk worth taking, especially as some of the deal means that the UAE government has control as well.

its been a while since i have had to deal wiht customs from this perspective... but i am fairly confident that the port "owner" has zero to do with customs issues. customs agents are on site for that and the shipping companies/ships report directly to customs. the port owner has nothing to do with these things. thats why i started to realize after some consideration that it probably does not matter who owns the port in the sense that the relevent security issues are the jurisdiction of various federal agencies.

does it matter that a city department owns LAX? does that change the security procedures and processes mandated by the federal governmnet or the fact that homeland security oversees them and their implementation and enforcement? in reality, it should not matter if Osama Bin Laden owned LAX - thats why airport security was brought under federal control. why are ports different?

[JR]

points to me for being able to argue any side of an issue just to be annoying

[TheEnforcer]

Originally Posted by JR

its been a while since i have had to deal wiht customs from this perspective... but i am fairly confident that the port "owner" has zero to do with customs issues. customs agents are on site for that and the shipping companies/ships report directly to customs. the port owner has nothing to do with these things. thats why i started to realize after some consideration that it probably does not matter who owns the port in the sense that the relevent security issues are the jurisdiction of various federal agencies.

does it matter that a city department owns LAX? does that change the security procedures and processes mandated by the federal governmnet or the fact that homeland security oversees them and their implementation and enforcement? in reality, it should not matter if Osama Bin Laden owned LAX - thats why airport security was brought under federal control. why are ports different?

They have access to and control all manifests and are responsible for security because the Coast Gaurd and Homeland Security as it is checks less than 5% of the containers now which is less than adequate. There is ZERO doubt in my mind that Al Qaeda would try and infiltrate the company and then be able to try and manipulate manifests, etc. Managing the ports allows them to choose when and where cargo goes, control of the manisfests, etc. I personally think NO foreign government should be in charge of any of our ports or airports regardless of nationality, race, or religion and this is a government company.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...2115-8912r.htm

"You have to be concerned about a firm from that part of the world managing the ports," this official said. "They are more vulnerable to compromise and penetration by terrorists, even if they are just managing the port."
Company officials would be briefed on security procedures and countermeasures that, if compromised, could allow foreign terrorists to get through various screening procedures, the official said.
The Coast Guard is responsible for port security, tracking ships, crews and cargo and search vessels based on intelligence. There is no cohesive hiring or screening process for port workers, however.