Front runners Sweeney & Gillibrand took immediate media stances about the pending port deal with the UAE company prepared to take over the British company currently managing the ports. While the US retains sovereignty and the Coast guard security, the question is why would a company risk its lucrative contract by not maintaining strict personell security ? Nobody seems too concerned about the fact that Cuba would like the US out of Gitmo . . . Is this a case of simple xenophobia or a deeper prejudice ? You tell us . . .
Comments (1)
First!
Ha, had to do that...
Anyway, back on topic, I'm still a little perplexed as to exactly why the US hadn't taken over our own port management years ago. It's not like the UK interests are exactly pin-compatible with ours. Anyway, to assume otherwise is as foolish as, well, many of the other assumptions that our foreign and domestic policies seem to be based on.
If we can set up the TSA to have twenty or so people watch me take off my shoes while I leave the country, why should any foreign interest be chartered with securing things coming in?
Oh, unless it's some kind of quid pro quo for considerations undisclosed, then it might make some sense, to those involved...
G<
Posted by minusp | March 1, 2006 8:57 AM
Posted on March 1, 2006 08:57