UAE will be running shipping, NOT security. Security will not change

[PassingThrough]

for what that is worth.

[BuyingThyme]

1. Nothing but a talking point. Literally.

[PassingThrough]

13. It is an actual fact. Plain and simple.

[BuyingThyme]

17. It's nonsense. You are a victim of Republican talking points.

To say that a company that runs a shipping port has no responsibility for security is insane. No offense, it's just insane.

[PassingThrough]

19. It doesnt. The British did not run security and the UAE will not either.

A fact is a fact.

[BuyingThyme]

22. This is like saying that you don't run security in your own home.

Though you don't understand it, you are arguing that security in your own home is run by George W. Bush because he's in charge of national security.

Complete nonsense.

[PassingThrough]

27. UAE is going to run cargo/shipping. That is it. Security is by another

company and ICE. Thats how it was with the British, thats how it will be with UAE.

Once again the FACT is that UAE is only taking over shipping operations. Current security will not change. Period.

[BuyingThyme]

You don't understand what you're saying.

Somebody has convinced you that only the people with security contracts are responsible for security. You are incorrect. You are a victim of Bush talking points.

[PassingThrough]

43. So, Longshoremen are responsible for security??? The simple fact

is that UAE will not be any more responsible for security then the British were. I fail to see why you continue to deny this fact. Do you have any evidence otherwise? If I am incorrect I would like to know.

[BuyingThyme]

53. Now you're just making things up.

See ya.

[PassingThrough]

65. Point out one thing that is untrue. Bet you can not.

Try reading this reply:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=493981&mesg_id=494195

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PassingThrough]

75. How did I do that???

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PassingThrough]

100. Give an actual example. If you are going to call me a liar prove it.

[BuyingThyme]

103. Read your post #43.

Do you think if you keep lying, your lies will disappear?

[PassingThrough]

110. Er, I never stated you said anything. You make no sense at all.

Sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. You seem confused. That post doesnt say anything about you. I am going to stop replying to you now. There seems no reason to continue. Hope you work things out.


Peace Out

[BuyingThyme]

114. You said that I deny, "that UAE will not be any more responsible

for security then the British were."

You made it up. It's a lie.

Now you're lying about why you're running and hiding. Maybe it's because you've been caught lying about lies.

[converted_democrat]

56. The company is a state run company.. The same state that funneled and

laundered money for the 911 hijackers.. They don't recognize Israel, and they do recognize the Taliban.. This isn't cool..

[converted_democrat]

25. But they will be loading and loading.. One of the most vulnerable areas

there is.. That isn't cool..

[northzax]

31. no, the local Longshoremen will be unloading/loading

every single one of these contracts requires the use of ILA-approved dockworkers.

[converted_democrat]

44. Well, than Lou Dobbs has his facts messed up, because he just said

it 5 minutes ago.. It still isn't cool.. UAE funneled and laundered money for the 911 hijackers.. This is a "state" run company.. This isn't cool.. Would an Arab nation let us do this in their ports? No..

[northzax]

54. Lou Dobbs has his facts messed up

or he misspoke.

and Netlink, a company with ties to the Bush family, operates a terminal in Shanghai, it's not uncommon.

[converted_democrat]

61. This is a state run company.. The same "state" that laundered and

funneled money to the 911 hijackers.. This is not cool..

[northzax]

82. ok, that is not correct

sorry. Yes, money that support Mohammad Atta and Co. came through, not from, Dubai. Why is that exactly? because Dubai is a banking haven. Just like Switzerland (where every criminal and terrorist organisation in the world has bank accounts) and the Caymans. Because you can bank anonymously in Dubai. I can go there, as a US citizen, and open a bank account with no identification. hell, I can open one remotely, they don't know who I am, or where I am, only a number. If you want to launder money in the middle east, you use Dubai, not because the government cooperates, but because they actually have bank privacy laws that are inviolable. Same with shipping through the Middle East, if you have something you want to hide, you send it through Dubai.

Dubai is not a police state, like everyone else in the region (save Israel) so it attracts a certain criminal element, just like Israel does (ever heard of the Israeli Mob? they ain't nice people, but I don't think they operate with the consent of the Israeli government, or blame Tel Aviv/Jerusalem when they do something)

[mondo joe]

86. Not a police state (unless you're gay).

No, it's a regular bastion of free thought. So free they recognized the Taliban as a ligit government and only stopped that when it got too hot.

[northzax]

91. you know, coming from a country that still fails to recognize Cuba

I'm not sure we can complain about that. Like it or not, the Taliban was the functional government of Afghanistan, the whole recognition/lack of recognition thing is just stupid, even the US had informal contacts with the Taliban before 2001 about some things, it's what happens.

[mondo joe]

95. The fuck I can't complain about it.

And thanks for ignoring the treatment of gays.

[northzax]

109. Look, that is a side issue, frankly

and one that is personally very important to me. BUT, our top 15 trading partners don't have the best records on homosexuality. I'm wearing a sweatshirt made in Malaysia (illegal) jeans made in Macao (illegal) a t-shirt made in LA (legal) and shoes made in South Korea (illegal) I'm typing this on a computer made in China (illegal) watching a TV made in Taiwan (illegal) heck, my socks were made in the Phillipines (illegal) and I'm drinking a Barbaresco from Italy (illegal)

While I am ashamed of the way our government treats homosexuals, and miss my sister (who moved to the UK to take advantage of the civil unions benefit) terribly, I can't use that as my sole arbitrator of what countries I will and will not trade with, that I'm going to be wearing a lot of English leather (fair enough, my wallet was made in England), and wearing Dutch clogs. Certainly the US should not be calling the kettle black on the treatment of homosexuals at this time.

does that address your question?

[mondo joe]

115. Yes - it addressed my question by establishing that you

don't care about who we do business with so long as the money is good.

Thanks.

[northzax]

121. well, that's your gross exagerration award of the day

what I said is that a country's treatment of homosexuals should not be the only determinant. And, unless you live in a house heated only by coal or wood stoves or hydro, don't own a single thing that uses fossil fuels, or a single thing made in Asia or Latin America or Africa, then you are simply making excuses. Given an option, I will support more friendly regimes, which is why I prefer Dubai to Singapore, (the other option)

Where did you get that Canadian/Dutch computer you are using, anyway? you do have one, right? seriously, I'd like to buy one, please tell me so I can stop buying computer parts made with quasi-slave labour in China.

[converted_democrat]

90. I'm sorry, I'm not buying it.. I don't think this is a good idea, and

I'm not going to change my position on this.. Waste your breath on someone else..

[northzax]

97. fair enough, but anytime I see you, or anyone else

post something that is blatently, and provably, false, I'm going to call them on it. There is so much information floating around out there that is bullshit, especially from the media, that I feel an obligation to point out the facts when I can. I hope you would do the same for me, if I posted something factually untrue that you knew the correct answer to. It's how we learn. We can't all be experts in everything, so we depend on each other to correct us when we swallow the bullshit, right?

be well.

[converted_democrat]

105. Everyone is wrong except you, a hand full of others, and the

president.. Like I said.. Don't waste your breath on me, I ain't buying..

[northzax]

112. ok, ignore the facts, then

remember, the great majority of Americans can neither find the UAE on a map, konw that Dubai is the capitol of that federation, tell you the make up of the government of the UAE, tell you that there is a US naval base there or even that Chimpanzees and Humans are descended from the same species originally.

So I'll take my facts, you take your belief.

[converted_democrat]

118. Again, sell it to someone who will buy it... This is a state owned company

and I think it's a bad idea.. Sell it to someone else..

[Telly Savalas]

Lou Dobbs is a fucking idiot.

[converted_democrat]

99. And? You think this is a good idea? I don't.. He's dedicated the

last week of his program to this issue.. Sorry if I think he might have a little better handle on this than you do.. Waste your breath on someone else, I'm not buying..

[iamthebandfanman]

113. well

hes smarter than most of the idiots in the MSM on Television.

Sorry.
But hes the only voice I see on TV speaking out for workers.
I cant hate the man.

[mondo joe]

116. He'll have to take consolation in being right. n/t

[iamthebandfanman]

67. and ?

and the company ISNT OWNED by the COUNTRY OF GREAT BRITAIN. Its private.
god.
the company in question IS owned by the GOVERNMENT of the UAE.
thats the issue here.

[tjdee]

2. Cool, but the company is still owned by the UAE.

Not cool.

[Vincardog]

3. UAE will be making the Security PLANs and submitting them to the

Coast Guard for review.

[Lost-in-FL]

4. Like having an untrained dog guarding the steaks

[HereSince1628]

5. And security is shit, AFAIC one alarm is as good as another to

wake up a nation that is clueless.

[shance]

6. Is that what they're "saying"? Their words mean nothing.

Americans are fools if they believe anything they say now.

[PassingThrough]

18. No its a fact. The British didnt run security either.

[KingFlorez]

7. And this makes the deal okay?

There is no way you can defend this deal at all

[PassingThrough]

16. I am not defending anything. DUers keep arguing incorrectly that

the UAE is taking over security. Just want to clarify things.

[KingFlorez]

20. Whatever

[Twist_U_Up]

23. Who does the hiring and firing ???

scotty mcmuffin wouldn't answer it. How bout you ?

[PassingThrough]

29. UAE will of course.

[Twist_U_Up]

38. There ya go.

nuff said

[northzax]

34. since it's all unionized

pretty much the ILA local.

[FormerRepublican]

8. UAE will be handling manifests, which means they know what goes...

...in and out, and they can easily manipulate the manifests for smuggling and other questionable activities.

[leftchick]

9. read this thread

then tell me what you think...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x481615

[TreasonousBastard]

Tell ya what I think...

back when I spent my days insuring ships, cargos, and terminal operators and had some salty retired sea captains working for me checking things out...

Customs inspected the ships for contraband and documentation.

INS was there in case there were illegals trying to get in.

FDA and Agriculture were there to check on safety, suitability, and standards of everything from canned shrimp to rubbers to the radiation let out by TVs and microwaves.

Port captains, port police, pilots, the Coast Guard, stevedores, and godknowshowmanyothers were there doing their things with regulations, standards, and general operations.

And they only managed to get a small percentage of the illegals, contraband, bad food, unmarked rubbers, bilge dumping, Ginseng and all the other crap they were looking for. The ports are just too damn big with too many ships from too many places with too much cargo to look at every box that comes through. And the terminal operator is often the one link in the chain with the least control over anything. The trouble we had with terminal operators was usually when they were cheap bastards and let things fall apart. Everyone else in the port was either a thief or chasing one.

So, what's changed to cause this hysteria?

[northzax]

59. the magic word you are looking for is "arab" I'm afraid.

strange how very few of the people who are actually involved in the industry are concerned about this, isn't it?

[mondo joe]

66. No, not "Arab" - it's "complicit in terrorist acts" to say nothing

of "repressive regime".

And my arab american spouse will tell you the same.

[TreasonousBastard]

69. Of course! This morning the Port Manager at Newark...

was interviewed, and he had no problem with the sale.

Just one more foreign operator of one of the seven terminals there.

But, this one's an AY-RAB!

Winning their hearts and minds every minute of the day, aren't we?

(Haven't seen this much hysteria since the old Communist witch hunts.)

[journalist3072]

10. That's just as bad....

Suppose some terrorist is transporting something to use in an attack against our country. And the UAE running the shipping, allow the terrorist to slip into our ports with materials to harm us with.

[tridim]

11. UAE will run shipping and security will remain..

That is, 19 of 20 cargo units will continue to be allowed into the country completely unchecked.

Who runs security on the originating side?

[PassingThrough]

15. The UAE or one of many foreign companies that control the ports worldwide.

[CatWoman]

32. Sean Hannity? Is that you?

If not, you sound just like him.

Which is the evil twin?

[PassingThrough]

37. Is what I am saying not true???????? Name calling because you do not

like something someone states. tsk tsk.

I think the deal is a bad idea by the way. I brought this up because I am reading post after post about UAE taking over security. Guess I should have let some remain ignorant. Guess ignorance is bliss.

[CatWoman]

41. Is Sean Hannity a four letter word now?

well, S-E-A-N is.

My bad.

[Telly Savalas]

101. Sean Hannity is a stupid fuck who like other Republicans

drums up fear and paranoia against the Middle East as a cheap means of promoting his political agenda.

It's wrong to berate PassingThrough for choosing not to emulate this racist behaviour like so many other "liberals" at DU.

[northzax]

42. the United States Coast Guard

and the Customs run the cargo checks. It is the United States government that allows 19 of 20 cargo containers to evade inspection, not the company doing the offloading.

[jim3775]

12. They could easily obstruct or bypass the security if they...

own the ports.

[northzax]

47. they don't own the ports.

they operate one or two terminals at the ports, using local labour. obstructing or bypassing the security from within would involve the use of local unionized labour to do so.

[Telly Savalas]

108. But the Arabs will convert the union workers to Islam

and have them sneak nuclear weapons into the United States.

Hop on the racist bandwagon!

Everybody's doing it!

[BuyingThyme]

117. Racism is assuming that a handful of dictators represent a race of people.

[tularetom]

14. Security currently sucks.

Difference will be it will suck with bin Laden frienldy port operators.

[Tin Man]

21. UAE will compile database: manifests, points of origin, ect & INSPECTIONS

...armed with a comprehensive database of manifests, shipping companies, time and place of origin and port of arrival, and INSPECTION HISTORIES - Al Queda could conceivably reverse-engineer the methods by which US Customs selects containers for spot inspection (it's not entirely random).

If Al Queda were to learn what peaks the interest of our inspectors, they only need to do the opposite in order to smuggle WMD into the US. Having DP operate these ports makes it easier for terrorists to gain databases of shipping data - giving them an intelligence coup and perhaps pointing the way 'in' that they're looking for...

[PassingThrough]

24. Who do you think ships into US ports??? Foreign companies control

ports. They know what is coming in and out of ours.

[Twist_U_Up]

26. off topic question

is dubya right on wiretapping too ?

[PassingThrough]

33. Lol, took you a while to show up. :P

[Twist_U_Up]

35. nice deflection

:eyes:

[PassingThrough]

40. You resort to personal attacks. It is clear what you are implying.

Not still mad because I did not like your shameless ad begging for money are you?

[Twist_U_Up]

49. You also accused the same of DU.

and I never attacked you. Shall I embarass you n front of everyone ?

[PassingThrough]

55. Lol, you are to obvious. I am not here for personal attacks or flaming.

I wish you the best regardless of your motives.

Peace Out

[Twist_U_Up]

60. thought so

[The Stranger]

28. But they are still goddamn A-RABS!

TERRAISTS -- ALL OF 'EM!

CAN'T TRUSS 'EM!

:sarcasm:

[mondo joe]

70. I dunno - my Arab American spouse thinks it's a bad and

dangerous idea.

Looks like Rove hit the liberal G-spot by crying racism (when in fact it's about the state's actions, not ethnicity).

[ProfessorGAC]

30. And Who Here DIDN'T Know This?

If you're going to belabor the obvious, you should at least try to explain why.
The Professor

[PassingThrough]

51. Read the replies and you will see several that still deny this is true.

Go to GD and look at the topics and you will see several that say UAE will be in charge of security.

I was trying to clear things up. Seems some people do not want to hear the truth if its not what they wish it to be.

[mondo joe]

58. You misunderstand. UAE would not be directly responsible for

security - we know that. But their management is still a SECURITY RISK.

That's the thing.

[PassingThrough]

68. But foreign companies control the ports the cargo is going to and coming

from. They are not going to have access to any new info.

I think the sale is a bad idea but just thing the security argument is bogus.

[mondo joe]

74. All foreign nations are not the same. Or would you trust

all people to babysit your children equally?

[PassingThrough]

83. Major companies are run by China, Singapore (sp?), Denmark and UAE...

Even if we own our ports we will still be shipping to foreign ports.

[mondo joe]

87. I feel like I need Garret Morris to interpret so you'll get this.

I know.

And I'm telling you ALL NATIONS ARE NOT THE SAME.

Our relations with them are not the same. Their interests are not the same. Their activities are not the same.

[ProfessorGAC]

79. Then Think About It More Carefully

The logisitics of transport, manifest documentation, port clearances, in and out, scheduling, coordination of inspection, loading and unloading are all in their hands. You don't think that that poses potential security conflicts? You've got to be kidding. How can it not? The entire operation and the inherent scheduling and documentation is in their hands.

I don't think you've thought this through.
The Professor

[PassingThrough]

88. I do not think the sale is a good idea like I have stated.

The whole intent of my even starting this thread was to point out that some were saying that UAE was taking over security when in fact they are only taking over shipping.

The thread appears to have taken on a life of its own and gotten out of hand. Maybe because of my inability to articulate my meaning. <shrug> Some people just seem hostile when anyone disagrees with them. Heck, my OP only stated one little fact and look what happened. Guess starting threads is something I should avoid.

Peace Out

[mondo joe]

98. But your premise was false. Even without taking over security

the UAE would have responsibility for aspects of security.

We've already covered this. You misunderstood.

[PassingThrough]

102. Aspects maybe but they would not be running actual security.

Guess I was not clear or maybe I needed to spell things out more. I am new here and was unaware of the hostility the post would generate. Live and learn I guess. I am out of the threading starting business.

Peace Out

[mondo joe]

106. Like I told you - no one thinks they would be running security -

or at least hardly anyone thinks that.

You have, I repeat, misunderstood.

[ProfessorGAC]

64. I've Been Here Daily For Over 5 Years

And, i've read this thread all the way through. You seem intent on making a point that isn't educating anyone. This has been discussed, including the detail you insist nobody knows, dozens of times in the last 2 and half days.

If YOU go through GD, you will notice at least a dozen and half posts by me in the last 2 days. So, obviously i've been here the whole time.

I think you are wrong about this. Folks here are way to aware to have let this slip by them. They know it, despite your insistence that they do not.

And it would appear that you don't understand the implications that lie beyond the simple X/Y relationship of who runs the ports and who provides security.

The Professor

[PassingThrough]

73. If you chk recent threads and the replies here you will plainly see

people still seem to be confused.

Also, if you had read all the replies you would have noticed that I have stated several times that I still think the sale is a bad idea.

Peace Out

[mondo joe]

76. No - they are not confused, by and large. They consider any

involvement with states that support terrorism to be a threat to security, even if they are not formally responsible for security.

[PassingThrough]

78. But they are misstating the sale. UAE will not be taking over security.

[mondo joe]

81. Let me try this again: We almost all know the UAE will not be

taking over security. We know that. We know.

The stance of myself and others is that EVEN WITHOUT TAKING OVER SECURITY their participation poses a THREAT TO SECURITY.

[ProfessorGAC]

80. Thanks Joe

I give up. I don't see one post in this thread that implies someone thinks the UAE firm will run security. But Passing Through insists that's what people think.

The Professor

[ProfessorGAC]

84. Show Me One Of Those Confused Posters

I can read too! I don't see one post where someone seems confused as to who is in charge of security. In fact, there are several replies here that make it clear that the potential conflict of who is in charge of the business end creates security conflicts, no matter who is doing the inspections. Yet, you keep repeating the same statement.

This is a horrible idea, for a series of reasons, and i think right here on this thread, those reasons are well enumerated. Yet, i can't find one post by a confused person who thinks DPI is going to be in charge of security.
The Professor

[Libby2]

36. It's worth nothing.

But thanks for playing.

[jsamuel]

39. They are going to know EVERYTHING about port security in each of those

cities. Will they have the ability to completely circumvent the system? Probably not, but that country will know every weak spot there is in our security and will have people working with these weak spots daily.



This deal is effectively putting targets on the backs of these cities. The deal creates weak spots in the most populated cities on the east coast. It’s just a plain bad idea.



All that without considering how trustworthy the UAE is… Here is some info on the UAE:

UAE royal family met with Bin Laden, saved him from CIA hit
http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing8/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-03-24.htm

MR. FIELDING: Yeah. Well, I would appreciate that on behalf of the Commission if you could do that because it seemed that this -- when the intelligence was so good, and that by the time the camp was dismantled days and days had passed.

So I would appreciate --

MR. TENET: There's also a question, I believe, as to whether bin Ladin was inside or outside the camp --

MR. FIELDING: Of course.

MR. TENET: -- it was a complicating issue in this whole thing -- and whether he was there or not. So there's a second complicating factor here.

The third complicating factor here is, you might have wiped out half the royal family in the UAE in the process, which I'm sure entered into everybody's calculation in all this.

But in any event, I would like -- I will try and reconstruct the data as best I can, in terms of what I had in my possession at the time.

The UAE won’t recognize Israel. (While Bush is making a deal with the UAE, he won’t touch Hamas because they won’t recognize Israel.)





The UAE was one of three countries that recognized the Taliban as legitimate rulers of Afganistan.





Some of the 9/11 hijackers came from UAE and were fincanced through UAE banks and the UAE government would not cooperate with the investigation after 9/11.





In general the UAE has 10X more problems with terrorists than Iraq had before we invaded them.

[eShirl]

45. remember the story of the Trojan Horse?

as Cafferty alluded earlier

[SoCalDem]

46. and.. The child molester will be "babysitting"your child..not adopting

:evilgrin:

[ShortnFiery]

48. UAE will have the manifests and shipping data ...

Don't cha think that is a TRUE security risk?!?

Sure, homeland security will make sure there's order and 5% of the cargo is inspected. But ole' UAE personnel will KNOW ALL that is shipped.

Not a good idea on the Operations Security Front, aye?

[PassingThrough]

57. Where do you think cargo is shipped? Who do you think controls those?

[ShortnFiery]

62. Personnel from the UAE, of course ... that's exactly my point !

In other Words = There are many layers of security - the shipping data, especially of a military nature is what's referred to as a part of Operations Security. This is not Port Security but an entirely different entity. And yeah, UAE will know EXACTLY what goes through ALL these ports. Not smart ... in fact utterly incompetent.

[PassingThrough]

111. But dont they already know alot of it? Goods come and go to the ports

they already control.

[ShortnFiery]

119. Kindly take off your blinders - they have ALL the essential details

about incoming and outgoing CARGO that could support, God forbid, another 9/11, or worse. :scared:

No way! If this goes through we will be hypocrites not to fully deal with Hamas? Why, because "our buddies" in the UAE also do NOT, I repeat, do NOT recognize the Sovereign State of Israel.

This deal stinks! It's all about Daddy Bush, Carlye and little brother Neil's investments. :puke: It's about the ruling classes making money ... those who are considered royalty in the USA and UAE.

[NightOwwl]

50. Congratulations!

As one of the select few who still have their heads up their ass, you win an all-expense trip to Iraq! Yippeee!

[Twist_U_Up]

72. head up ass

[PassingThrough]

77. Wow, a personal attack! Way to add to the discussion!

Glad to know you care enough to reply.

Peace Out

[Mazie Gordon]

52. One of the problems with this deal

is that the existing handful of global shipping companies have fought (and no doubt lobbied against) increased security for container shipping, a la the airline industry pre-9/11. This isn't the first time the dangers of uninspected containers have been pointed to as problematic. Only about 4% of containers are ever inspected, correct? Don't expect bush to increase that percentage anytime soon.

[ShortnFiery]

85. That is beside the point ...

Again, the UAE will control the SHIPPING = Knowledge of all materials in transit. Hum? The Coast Guard will make sure all the Fire Extinguishers work and the Ship is properly represented with crew and documents.

The Coast Guard will not control SQUAT with regard to the content of the CARGO.

Guess who will know EVERYTHING about the content of the cargo and it's transit location(s)?

ding! ding! ding!

The UAE where 2 of the 9/11 Hijackers came from.

Feel safer now?

[Rex]

63. The Coast Guard

is our only line of defense. I don't trust the DHS.

[Twist_U_Up]

92. Alright who recommended this? lol funny funny nt

[PassingThrough]

104. You my first stalker! I feel honored!

[stanwyck]

93. All the manifests will be available

on what is being shipped and where.
Prime meat for terrorists.

[PassingThrough]

107. Doesnt the receiving port also get that information?

[Jacobin]

94. Having a long term lease

gives the lessee quite a bit of 'ownership' of a facility like this. I would think the lease terms give them veto powers over quite a few matters.

This distinction you raise I'm afraid may be more of a talking point than a real distinction over dominion of the ports

[CabalPowered]

96. Managing the manifests is step one in port security

[johnaries]

120. WRONG! The US will still be doing inspections, BUT DP will

be responsible for hiring security:
http://thestar.com.my/columnists/story.asp?file=/columnists/2006/2/19/stateside/13441429&sec=State%20Side

The deal allows the company, except for cargo screening functions performed by the Department of Homeland Security, to be responsible for securing cargo coming in and out of the port, the port facility itself, and the hiring of security personnel

more links:
http://www.californiaconservative.org/?p=2275
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/am-port0220,0,7514795.story?coll=ny-nycnews-headlines
http://khon.com/khon/display.cfm?storyID=11438&sid=1151

[pinto]

122. Locking. Please see this:

3. Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

and, in the more detailed membership guidelines:

Personal Attacks, Civility and Respect

The administrators of Democratic Underground are working to provide a place where progressives can share ideas and debate in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Despite our best efforts, some of our members often stray from this ideal and cheapen the quality of discourse for everyone else. Unfortunately, it is simply impossible to write a comprehensive set of rules forbidding every type of antisocial behavior. The fact that the rules do not forbid a certain type of post does not automatically make an uncivil post appropriate, nor does it imply that the administrators approve of disrespectful behavior. Every member of this community has a responsibility to participate in a respectful manner, and to help foster an atmosphere of thoughtful discussion. In this regard, we strongly advise that our members exercise a little common decency, rather than trying to parse the message board rules to figure out what type of antisocial behavior is not forbidden.

Do not post personal attacks or engage in name-calling against other individual members of this discussion board. Even very mild personal attacks are forbidden.

Do not hurl insults at other individual members of this message board. Do not tell someone, "shut up," "screw you," "fuck off," "in your face," or some other insult.

Do not call another member of this message board a liar, and do not call another member's post a lie. You are, of course, permitted to point out when a post is untrue or factually incorrect.

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post to let the moderators know.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

thanks for your consideration.