The Command T.O.C.

62 -2 and Bush is Screwed

Well, poor Bush is screwed. The House appropriations committee today voted 62-2 to not allow DPW to buy US ports (seems like a good idea).  But, what I like is the great way they did it. They attached it to a Hurricane Katrina and Iraq War emergency appropriations bill.

What this means is that if Bush is going to veto it, he will have to veto a bill for Hurricane Katrina and Iraqi war money. I hope he does it then I can see the Democrats in 2008 running for President, telling the American public that Bush voted against the Iraq War and Hurricane Katrina relief.

Senator Schumer initiated an amendment in the Senate about the same topic.

The Republican Talking Points Are Established - Against the Port Deal and You Are a Racist

If you have ever been a fan of Star Trek (The original and only) you remember the episode which concerned "Landrew". Landrew was a computer which had been left by ancient leaders and it controlled an entire society. All day long people walk around very peacefully and are nice to each other. Then, "Festival" starts and for about 1 hour the town goes crazy as Landrew must reboot or something.

At the end of the episode, Kirk decides to blow up the computer to make people think on their own. When Landrew is blown up, the people come to the computer confused screaming "Landrew.. where are you". Kirk says something like, "Look, they have never had to think on their own". Well, that is what has happened to the Republicans over Dubai-Gate.

Like the ending of the Landrew episode, the republican right wing nuts came running to the White House (Figuratively) when the Dubai gate episode started saying, "George... what has happened, this sounds so F***ing stupid.. help us.. tell us what to think." Like Landrew, George told them what to think and within days the blogs and talking points were out. Here they are:

The first things all right wing nut blogs had to say about this was something like this, "...at first I did not understand it but after reviewing the facts, I realized it is not so bad since the Coast Guard is really in charge of the security." This was talking point number one and was repeated at the Baldilocks religious right zealot site, Glenn Reynolds Link Farm, and the mudville gazette's milblog propoganda site. The way they repeat themselves blog to blog reminds me of a magazine which always starts off their stories by saying, "I never thought this would happen to me but...".

So, now that they have their talking instructions from "Landrew" in the White House the story is out that the Coast Guard controls security, the operator of the port knows nothing about how the port is secured and the operator is really just a good Country even if they financed 9/11 and put two of the terrorists in the air.

But wait! Landrew needs to issue new guidance as it comes out today that Dubai refuses to recognize Israel and since DPW is a Government owned entity, by default, the Company refuses to recognize Isreal. An anti-semetic company running our ports? I guess this will quiet the other part of the White House Propaganda machine which is that if anyone is against this deal they are xenophobic.

The deal is dead and Landrew is leading his flock astray both on the deal and on the explanation. But, then again, this is the same crowd which changes the reason why we are at war by the month so I guess I should expect no less.

Linked to Mudville Gazette

What Does it Mean - DHS is In Charge of Port Security?

I recently watched Joe Biden on Fox News this morning. He said something that I think has been lost in this Dubai Gate scandal. The right wing nuttery has rallied around the cry that DPW will just "run the port" and the Coast Guard is still in charge of security.

However, Joe Biden said today that the Coast Guard merely approves the security plan drawn up by the port operator. Further, the port operator has access to all the security plans for the port so they can comply (Makes sense). So, now the question is, do we want Dubai setting our port security and having access to our security plans?

Thomas (Library of Congress) is down for maintenance today so I went to a Google cached page to look this up. Here are some interesting facts.

First, the Coast Guard officer in charge of the Port is called the Captain of the Port (COPT) and the definition of his role can be seen here. But suffice it to say, he is responsible for:

"A Captain of the Port enforces regulations for the protection and security of vessels, harbors, and waterfront facilities; anchorages; bridges; safety and security zones; and ports and waterways. For example, he may designate restricted areas, such as around nuclear power plants; mandate the use of pilots for navigation into harbor; mandate prior notice of arrival for ships carrying hazardous material; and other safety or security related activities."

So, how does he do this? From the Port and Maritime Security act of 2001:

"Specifically, each port assessed under the provisions of section 5 would be required to submit a security program to the local Captain of the Port, one year after the completion of the vulnerability assessment . Security programs would be required to include certain program elements including: a provision for maintaining physical security and procedural security for passenger, cargo, crew members and workers; a credentialing process to limit access to sensitive areas; a process to restrict vehicular access; a set of restrictions on the carriage of firearms and other prohibited weapons; a private security officers training program, or provision for the use qualified law enforcement personnel. In evaluating security programs the Captain of the Port would be directed to incorporate existing security programs and laws and to ensure that the security programs do not conflict with any State or local law, to help eliminate redundancies, and allow existing practices to continue. Security programs would be approved or disapproved with reason a explanation by the Captain of the Port, and if disapproved, the Captain of the Port shall provide a reason for the disapproval. Security programs disapproved would be required to be resubmitted within six months for approval."

The port submits the security plans for approval. Don't you think that the DPW would be deeply involved in the creation and submission of that plan? How would the port ever be secured if the port operator was not involved?

So, how do the right wing nuts mislead you? They say the Coast Guard is in control of port security no matter who operates the port. Technically accurate. What they do not say (or do not know) is that those security plans are drawn up by the port operator and the Coast Guard approves or disapproves of them. Further, they do not tell you that the port operator has full access to these plans which means that they know the "holes" which exist in it.

More to follow once Thomas is back up so I can get further definitions but the following is very clear:

1. The port operator is deeply involved in the creation of the security plan
2. The port operator has access to the final security plan.
3. The UAE was deeply involved in the 9/11 terrorist act by both spawning terrorists and financing the terrorism.
4. The UAE is a drug transloading location (CIA World book).

So, again I ask, why take the risk?

Update: 2/26/2005 Noon: The Drudge report shows that we are now up to 21 ports being turned over to the UAE, not the 6 previously reported. Further, according to the UPI, Joe Muldoon, an attorney representing a company which partners with P&O running Miami agrees with me and says the following:

""The Coast Guard oversees security, and they have the authority to inspect containers if they want and they can look at manifests, but they are really dependent on facility operators to carry out security issues," Muldoon said."

Further, when referring to the Maritime Security act of 2002, The UPI says:

"Under the same law, port facility operators may have access to Coast Guard security incident response plans -- that is, they would know how the Coast Guard plans to counter and respond to terrorist attacks."

This supports my position that this deal will give the UAE access to our security plans and actions to counter terrorism.

Bush has made us less secure by stretching our Army in Iraq while Iran and North Korea go about their merry way making nuclear weapons and now he outsources our port security. Good job George.

Running The Ports Does Not give You Insight into Security? Huh?

I have read a lot about the Dubai port issue and just read a posting at the "Crazy Politico's rantings" about this issue. I must say I am surprised at how naive people can be about port security.

First, he cites that it was not done in the "dead of the night" and Congress should have known. Maybe, but this is a side discussion and not germaine to the actual issue of whether running the port gives someone insight into the security at the port.

He goes on:

"DPW will also not be running security and inspections. That's still handled by the Coast Guard and DHS. In fact NO port operator knows what containers will be inspected when ships arrive in the US. They are told by the CG or Customs Service that a particular container will be inspected as it's offloaded, with no notice. The inspectors in the port don't even get the list until the ship docks, so they can't leak the information."

There is no way this gentleman ever worked at a port. Everyone at a port will tell you that "relationships matter". What does that mean? It is a fancy way of saying if you know people and they like you you can "get things done". So, an inspector shows up at your bonded warehouse and you are very close to that inspector. Does he look very closely? Does he open every box? Can you "steer" him to certain locations? I will suffice it to say that "relationships matter".

To think that you can have a company work on the port but then say they will know no more about how security is implemented at that port than the average American is ludicrous and does not pass the common sense test.

You can show the "regulations" all you want but anyone who has worked with the Government and Government agencies knows that there are the stated ways of getting things done then there are the "true ways" of getting things done. This is not a conspiracy theory issue either. It is just a fact of life.

Finally, why would we take the risk? Let's say the risk is only 5%; why take it? What is the point? Further, why are we letting a foreign government entity run these ports? This is not just a "foreign company" but rather it is a foreign GOVERNMENT running the port. If we are going to do that, I have more faith in the United States Government than I do in the Dubai / UAE Government.

This does not pass the common sense test and no matter how much make up you put on the pig, it is still a pig.