YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...tml?sub=AR' Sounds like the House leadership is not waiting for the 45 days and are ducking for cover before the election. Port Deal must be getting a lot of traction back home as more details about Dubai and what actually gets checked in cargo before and after. History Channel ran a piece last night talking about port vulnerabilities and high seas piracy, as well as Al-Qaeda operatives caught in training excercises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...tml?sub=AR' Sounds like the House leadership is not waiting for the 45 days and are ducking for cover before the election. Port Deal must be getting a lot of traction back home as more details about Dubai and what actually gets checked in cargo before and after. History Channel ran a piece last night talking about port vulnerabilities and high seas piracy, as well as Al-Qaeda operatives caught in training excercises. 620830[/snapback] !@#$ing Sand N*@($$@# Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...tml?sub=AR' Sounds like the House leadership is not waiting for the 45 days and are ducking for cover before the election. Port Deal must be getting a lot of traction back home as more details about Dubai and what actually gets checked in cargo before and after. History Channel ran a piece last night talking about port vulnerabilities and high seas piracy, as well as Al-Qaeda operatives caught in training excercises. 620830[/snapback] I think we are finally seeing a demonstration of what the phrase "lame duck" means if even on just a small scale. At the same time, Republicans in the Senate are only too happy to help the duck out on the wiretapping and such. So he isn't that lame...yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 That's so cool. It'll be interesting to see if they go after the other 75% of ports that are currently being run by foriegn companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 I think we are finally seeing a demonstration of what the phrase "lame duck" means if even on just a small scale. At the same time, Republicans in the Senate are only too happy to help the duck out on the wiretapping and such. So he isn't that lame...yet. 620919[/snapback] I was wondering if anyone would catch that 89-10 vote. I noticed that the "spying" on US citizens is also moving along nicely under the covers. I've yet to hear an explanation from the critics of the port deal how blocking Dubai Ports control of the port operations is better for US security than allowing Emirates Air to fly into US airspace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 8, 2006 Author Share Posted March 8, 2006 That's so cool. It'll be interesting to see if they go after the other 75% of ports that are currently being run by foriegn companies. 620922[/snapback] The legislation as I understand, currently prevents critical infrastructure to be owned by a foreign government. Duncan Hunter R-CA proposed it. Does that force divestiture and how would that work? What is interesting is the Appropriations Chairman Jerry Lewis is going to attach to it to the "Supplemental Iraq spending bill (meaning they are using Enron accounting methods)" Once attached, it will be difficult to remove and new House Majority Leader with the support of Speaker Hastert don't plan to remove it, putting the White House in a bind and probably forcing the Senate to consider it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 8, 2006 Author Share Posted March 8, 2006 I was wondering if anyone would catch that 89-10 vote. I noticed that the "spying" on US citizens is also moving along nicely under the covers. I've yet to hear an explanation from the critics of the port deal how blocking Dubai Ports control of the port operations is better for US security than allowing Emirates Air to fly into US airspace. 621036[/snapback] Yeh that Senate caved, Dems couldn't get over the fact that Republicans would probably run ads against them stating that they weren't protecting the U.S. and that they fixed the freedom issue, which they didn't. No big suprise there. Emirates Air allowed to fly into U.S. airspace, what is the problem there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 I was wondering if anyone would catch that 89-10 vote. I noticed that the "spying" on US citizens is also moving along nicely under the covers. I've yet to hear an explanation from the critics of the port deal how blocking Dubai Ports control of the port operations is better for US security than allowing Emirates Air to fly into US airspace. 621036[/snapback] For the sake of argument, here is a difference: all bags are scanned before being loaded on a plane, including Emirates Air. Further, all passengers have to go through various detection devices before getting on the plane and thereafter, have to clear customs. Is every cargo container, every vessel, every sailor, etc. scanned prior to entry? I don't think the situations are comparable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 I was wondering if anyone would catch that 89-10 vote. I noticed that the "spying" on US citizens is also moving along nicely under the covers. I've yet to hear an explanation from the critics of the port deal how blocking Dubai Ports control of the port operations is better for US security than allowing Emirates Air to fly into US airspace. 621036[/snapback] Where are you getting that 89-10 vote figure? The NYT article says that it was a committee vote which, according to Rockefeller was 8-7 on party lines. This was yesterday, did they already vote on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 For the sake of argument, here is a difference: all bags are scanned before being loaded on a plane, including Emirates Air. Further, all passengers have to go through various detection devices before getting on the plane and thereafter, have to clear customs. Is every cargo container, every vessel, every sailor, etc. scanned prior to entry? I don't think the situations are comparable. 621065[/snapback] Thank you both for confirming my suspicion that despite BiB's, monkey's and others' lengthy diatribes on the logistical problem of launching a terror strike from a shipping container, the criticism can still be boiled down to smelly brown people wearing turbans controlling our ports. From a security standpoint, commercial airplanes still possess a disproportionately higher risk to the US than any other means. So, let's put the criticism of Dubai Ports on the same plane with Emirates Air (also controlled by the UAE government), and compare the logistics of a possible terror strike. Your concern that with DP's control of the operation (not security) of the ports you increase the possibility of a WMD making its way onto a shipping container through some kind of complicity among DP's US management, UAE government, the shipping company and the dockworkers on both end of container in transit. Thus, we are to believe that a terrorist organization is going to infiltrate all five of those wildly disparate parties to launch a strike. Never mind the problem the terroristsd face in trusting a once in a lifetime cataclysmic weapon to sit in an unmarked unmonitored container for thousands of ocean miles. Never mind that the vast majority of the shipping containers do not originate in UAE, and the ones that do, are probably the ones that are intensely scrutinize. Let's contrast that to the possibility of Al Qeda recruiting one cargo worker or one mechanic for Emirates Air who can stow away an explosive device on a 747 just as it lands at JFK. Big difference indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Where are you getting that 89-10 vote figure? The NYT article says that it was a committee vote which, according to Rockefeller was 8-7 on party lines. This was yesterday, did they already vote on it? 621087[/snapback] 89-10 was the senate vote on Patriot extension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Yeh that Senate caved, Dems couldn't get over the fact that Republicans would probably run ads against them stating that they weren't protecting the U.S. and that they fixed the freedom issue, which they didn't. No big suprise there. Emirates Air allowed to fly into U.S. airspace, what is the problem there? 621054[/snapback] Apples and oranges comparison tangent boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Yeh that Senate caved, Dems couldn't get over the fact that Republicans would probably run ads against them stating that they weren't protecting the U.S. and that they fixed the freedom issue, which they didn't. No big suprise there. Emirates Air allowed to fly into U.S. airspace, what is the problem there? 621054[/snapback] The democrats didn't cave. The Senate Select Comm. on this voted on party lines to reject the democratic proposal to investigate the program and instead, passed a ball washing alternative which was directly approved by the White House, apparently proposed by "Senator" Bush. I don't know where that 89-10 figure is coming from, maybe confused with the vote on the new and improved Patriot Act? In short, democrats did what they could but the monolithic, of one brain Republican Reichstagg kept dear leader safe even from inquiry. Yet another example of why we need divided government resulting from the mid-term elections. Why doesn't the President respect the constitution and the other branches of governement? Because he doesn't have to. Thank you Olympia Snow, Mike DeWine and Arlen Specter. I am comforted by the fact that they are oh so concerned and deeply troubled by all the executive power grabbing going on. Not enough to do anything about it you understand but still, they are "troubled". Too bad, the only way any brakes get applied to this administration are if the so called moderate republicans start actually voting differently than the not so moderate republicans. When push comes to shove, they keep reaching for the rubber stamp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Thank you Olympia Snow, Mike DeWine and Arlen Specter. I am comforted by the fact that they are oh so concerned and deeply troubled by all the executive power grabbing going on. Not enough to do anything about it you understand but still, they are "troubled". Too bad, the only way any brakes get applied to this administration are if the so called moderate republicans start actually voting differently than the not so moderate republicans. When push comes to shove, they keep reaching for the rubber stamp. 621115[/snapback] And the counter argument is that they stepped aside from Congressional efforts to encroach on executive power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 8, 2006 Author Share Posted March 8, 2006 And the counter argument is that they stepped aside from Congressional efforts to encroach on executive power. 621126[/snapback] They and a majority of Dems caved with lame excuses...stepped aside, nice pretty language, still they caved. Read Bloomberg, Reid was as mealy mouthed as I have ever heard him. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=100...=top_world_news Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 8, 2006 Author Share Posted March 8, 2006 Apples and oranges comparison tangent boy. 621096[/snapback] Good one, but seriously, GG asked the question not me. I just try to go with the flow, but to be accurate it is ADD boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Good one, but seriously, GG asked the question not me. 621156[/snapback] Because you brought up port security in the thread opener.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Good one, but seriously, GG asked the question not me. I just try to go with the flow, but to be accurate it is ADD boy. 621156[/snapback] Sorry, I didn't look closely enough. I thought I was responding to GG who originally posted the non sequitur question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Because you brought up port security in the thread opener.. 621166[/snapback] What do airlines have to do with port security? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 What do airlines have to do with port security? 621172[/snapback] Absolutely, nothing. One is a major risk, the other one is minor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts