Homeland Security. Edited to add.... Someone please explain this to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jfulcer]

Well, I'd love to hear from any Republicans that think this is a good thing, and their reasons why!

Because this company has a track record of handling ports just fine ALL over the world? Isn't that a simple enough answer?

 

[jfulcer]

Hey, you know - Dell sends a lot of our tech support calls to India. They're NON AMERICAN. Oh no! It's not 'business'.

Let's not have those NON AMERICANS handling anything in our country, cause they're all out to BLOW US UP.

 

[eclectics]

Because this company has a track record of handling ports just fine ALL over the world? Isn't that a simple enough answer?

Our security should not be handed over to ANY private company, imho. I don't care if they are from Bahrain or Boston. The Dept. of Homeland Security is a joke in it's present form and should be totally revamped. A tight, competent agency is not an impossibility and should be a budget priority, instead of a so called "tax cut".

 

[crazyme5kids]

jfulcer, please don't turn this into a "must be a democrat thread". I'd really like a clear understanding of this decision. You know the track record of this company, so please give me facts and don't veer off into all kinds of other absurd ravings. If you want to discuss the outsourcing of jobs to India (or anywhere else for that matter) start a new thread. If you think giving the contract to them is a great idea state that and state why.

Please everyone lets's keep this thread on topic. Please don't slide into the well in the Clinton, Nixon , Carter, stone age days............. Keep it to the here and now and on topic. I am trying to understand the wisdom of this decision!

Do I feel safe or that it is a good idea? No not yet. That is why I am looking for more information. Maybe once I have more facts I will think it is a fantastic decision.

I have said (can't remember if I stated it here too), that I would feel so much safer if our troops were back here on our soil protecting our ports and airports. Put them in charge, it would make more sense to me than giving the contract to any privatized company.

 

[jfulcer]

jfulcer, please don't turn this into a "must be a democrat thread". I'd really like a clear understanding of this decision. You know the track record of this company, so please give me facts and don't veer off into all kinds of other absurd ravings.

I'm not normally a vocal political person. You (and others) veered off already in regards to this being non-political, IMHO. Your comment was less severe and not really 'bush bashing', but many others were.

Keep it to the here and now and on topic. I am trying to understand the wisdom of this decision!

It's simple. A company in the UK decided they didn't want to be in the Port Management business anymore. Something (that as far as I understand) they have been doing for us and others for quite some time. A few companies made bids to buy the company. A UAE Company won. Straight business decision.

It was vetted through (and again, as far as I can tell) various government agencies that had the right to veto the decision and did not.

I have said (can't remember if I stated it here too), that I would feel so much safer if our troops were back here on our soil protecting our ports and airports. Put them in charge, it would make more sense to me than giving the contract to any privatized company.

The reality is, some of our troops are here at home. But it's not their job to guard the ports and airports. It's Homeland Security's job (or whatever agency). I would tend to imagine that they have their fingers in it now, and will continue to do so in the future. Just because the company that manages the ports is different, doesn't mean the security will be any different.

I'm sorry - I wish I were familiar with the Industry to be able to say what was what. I can only take educated guesses. I suppose if the government is ok with them managing them, I have to be ok with it to. There really is not much I could do about it anyway.

 

[jfulcer]

Our security should not be handed over to ANY private company, imho. I don't care if they are from Bahrain or Boston. The Dept. of Homeland Security is a joke in it's present form and should be totally revamped. A tight, competent agency is not an impossibility and should be a budget priority, instead of a so called "tax cut".

Can you show me that the security for our ports is not being handled by the DHS or some other government organization? Can you show me what the mandate is for Port management or what this new companies responsibilities are going to be?

I've looked. I can't find it. But I will certainly assume that the government isn't going to just say 'oh you go ahead and take care of it so we don't have to.'

 

[eclectics]

Can you show me that the security for our ports is not being handled by the DHS or some other government organization? Can you show me what the mandate is for Port management or what this new companies responsibilities are going to be?

I've looked. I can't find it. But I will certainly assume that the government isn't going to just say 'oh you go ahead and take care of it so we don't have to.'

I stand by my statement. Our security (present and future), including airport screening, should be done by the government, not be given to, and planned to be given to, private industry. Instead of attemting to outsource, the DHS should be tightened up, given funding, and given the ability to hire Americans who are competent and qualified to defend our ports, airports, and borders. Is this a pipe dream? In this administration, apparantly so.

 

[Puffy2]

I just want to point out that the Roman's fell because they hired out their security to other "nations" (for lack of a better word) - as a result, the paid "security force" wasn't motivated to actually protect the Romans and their land - they really didn't give a rat's behind what happend to the Romans...and neither will this outside "company" .

Rome fell and so will the US if we don't get our act together and elect politicans who are more concerned with protecting and promoting America rather than lining their own pockets. It's that simple. And this policy is foolish.

 

[Puffy2]

Hey, you know - Dell sends a lot of our tech support calls to India. They're NON AMERICAN. Oh no! It's not 'business'.

Let's not have those NON AMERICANS handling anything in our country, cause they're all out to BLOW US UP.
__________________
.

First of all, those calls handled by the Indians, well...they blow. Service is practically non-existant in this country thanks to outsourcing. Just try getting your computer to work or your phone problem solved with one of those calls.

And second, whether or not my internet connection or phone service works properly isn't going to affect my personal well being or safety. An unsecured port does, There is a big difference.

 

[Planogirl]

I agree that National Security should be handled by our forces and should not be outsourced. I don't see the logic in it and I don't see how this relates to call centers being in India. And my confusion has nothing to do with who's in charge.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

Republican chiming in (a not-too-happy Republican, who leans more Libertarian, but my voting card says Republican nontheless). The Department of Homeland Security is the biggest joke ever. I work in an industry that deals with the DHS and one of its more prominent agencies (cough TSA cough) on a daily basis. I have never dealt with such a moronic group before.

Anything that DHS gets its hands on turns to crap. This is just but one of many idiotic, stupid things going on. DHS is such transparent window dressing that it is totally laughable.

Phew, that felt good to get all of that out. THANKS!

 

[inneedofvacation]

Is it bad that I would feel safer with a private company handling port security vs the US government. I'm Republican by the way, not a happy one but one none the less.

 

[CapeCodTenor]

Another Republican here and if this is true, which it sounds like, then I'm not to happy by it as well. I think we should be dealing with the security of our own ports and not another country, well, a company based in another country.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

Is it bad that I would feel safer with a private company handling port security vs the US government. I'm Republican by the way, not a happy one but one none the less.

Hmmmm...you do raise a good point.

 

[CapeCodTenor]

Is it bad that I would feel safer with a private company handling port security vs the US government. I'm Republican by the way, not a happy one but one none the less.

I'm right there with ya on this one, but I'd prefer a US company doing the job.

 

[crazyme5kids]

Thank you everyone for getting back on topic, but more importantly being polite. It is refreshing and frankly I know I will get more out of your opinions, as well as any insight you might have on this topic when it doesn't turn into a pissing match.

 

[Disney Gator]

After reading and then re-reading the article I can't find where it says the company will be responsible for the security of the ports. It simply says they are taking over management of the port. Can someone point out to me where in the article it says that this company will handle all security aspects of the port and DHS will not be involved at all?

 

[jfulcer]

After reading and then re-reading the article I can't find where it says the company will be responsible for the security of the ports. It simply says they are taking over management of the port. Can someone point out to me where in the article it says that this company will handle all security aspects of the port and DHS will not be involved at all?

That's one of the points I was trying to make. I looked all over on the DHS site, and in many internet posts about the sale, and it does not say this company is handling security - just the management. Two different things. I can't find WHO does it (and maybe that's the way it is supposed to be???)

What scares me even more it's entirely possible that the organization that was responsible for the crappy Katrina response is responsible for our security. I really do believe the ones involved in management of the DHS should go to 'Finger Pointers Anonymous". The TSA already scares me...

 

[jfulcer]

I agree that National Security should be handled by our forces and should not be outsourced. I don't see the logic in it and I don't see how this relates to call centers being in India. And my confusion has nothing to do with who's in charge.

It was my lame attempt to show that it's possible for NON Americans to handle something, even if they do 'blow' at it. As an American I truly believe that it's the 'Americans First above everything else' mentality that contributes to people in Arab countries bringing up their children hating America.

Hey, gimme a break, it was late and I was tired.

 

[crazyme5kids]

I know this is a very stupid question, but here goes. When they say the company will just be taking over the management of the port, what exactly does that mean. Sorry, but it just seems to be a little vague to me. Hey I never claimed to be the brightest bulb in my familylol!