Why do Repubs keep saying the port owner isn't responsible for security?

[ProSense]

There are three recognized kinds of organizations that provide port-wide layered security: a port authority, State and local governments, and consortia or associations which represent MTSA regulated entities as defined in 33 CFR Parts 101, 104, and 105.

A port authority may provide layered security through port-wide prevention and detection activities on behalf of all port users, the landlord for the tenants on port property, or as the owner operator of the port operations. This layered security must include MTSA regulated entities, and the layered security provided by the port authority must be addressed in the regulated entities’ security plan.

State and local governments, through law enforcement or other recognizable State or local agencies, may also provide layered security for MTSA regulated entities. Those government agencies that are responsible for maintaining security for MTSA regulated entities must be addressed in the regulated entities’ security plan or in the Area Maritime Security Plan developed by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port and the Area Maritime Security Committee.

Consortia or associations that provide layered security to MTSA regulated facilities. The consortium or association entity that submits the application must be a MTSA regulated entity. In addition, the layered protection provided must be addressed in the regulated entities’ security plan.


Ownership of port facilities varies from port to port. In some cases, individual tenants own land within a port, while others lease their space from the port entity. Additionally, approximately 90% of the Nation’s port infrastructure is privately owned and operated. Within ports, the highest risk assets include oil, chemical, gas terminals and passenger/ferry vessels/terminals that are often owned/operated by the private sector. The Department recognizes the unique challenges this represents with respect to portwide risk reduction. The Department also believes that security should be a shared responsibility. To address this issue, the Department has determined that private companies3 are eligible to apply for funding under the FY 2005 PSG Program. However, applications from private entities must demonstrate a cash match of at least 50% of the total amount requested in Federal funding in order to be considered. Note: Applications may not be submitted on behalf of a private company by a public entity and sub-awarded back to the private company to avoid the cash match requirement.


http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/fy2005psg.pdf

[northzax]

1. depends on your definition of security, don't it?

if you define security as examining cargo, and immigration, then the port operator has little to do with it. If you define security as patrolling the waterways and outside of the port to ensure people don't come in without authorisation, then the operator has little to do with it. If you define security as hiring rent-a-cops to protect private property, then sure, the company that paid for the cranes and the equipment, and holds a lease on the property is responsible for protecting its own property and interests. just as you are responsible for protecting your property.

of course, if a port operator wanted to destroy its own property, that would be difficult to stop, just as it would be hard to stop you from burning down your own house.

[ProSense]

7. Bad analogy

Would be valid if my house was a pass through for 95% of anything originating overseas and destined for anywhere in America. My computers (network) would be linked to a foreign government's and I could relay information in real time to whoever was on the other end.

Sort of like this

Snip...

Senior intelligence officials in Washington characterized al Qaeda's reconnaissance information as "chilling" in its scope and breadth.

They said it includes details about whether security guards are armed, the location of security cameras, notes on traffic patterns and possible escape routes, building construction details, what kind of explosives could do maximum damage, the configuration of parking garages, what kind of vehicles are allowed, and even the incline of garage entrances.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/01/terror.threat/

I just making this up as I go along, but I see red flags.

[IsItJustMe]

2. I give up. It hurts their brain?

[woodsprite]

3. It comes from being part of "lack of responsible ownership" society. n/t

[iconoclastNYC]

4. Because they are SOCIOPATHIC LIARS.

[madmark]

5. they are playing with semantics, the key word is "responsibility";

so if al quada infiltrates the UAE and gets into this UAE business and uses the knowledge of and operational access to a US port to conduct a terrorist attack, the bush fuck ups will be responsible for another fuck up, and yes that is all true. The issue is, why incur one scintilla of the risk involved in giving the UAE operational knowledge and access, particularly when we have Team Fuckup responsible for monitoring the situation if it goes bad.

[librechik]

6. electrode in the urethra

at least, that's what I've alwasy suspected