JONES ACT

[seagypsywoman]

I can't find the Bilge thread. Do we have one?

I'll post this here, but if there is a Bilge thread, perhaps we could move the discussion there.

A while ago I posted this on another thread and it started an interesting discussion:

"Bush and the Jones Act
In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff temporarily waived the Jones Act upon the instruction of President George W. Bush on September 2, 2005. [1]

And here is the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones_Act_(sailor_rights)

I wonder if it's been re-instated."

Today, I see on Yahoo news, this item:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20060...ports_security

No wonder that Bush didn't re-instate the Jones Act. He's been selling the American ports.

Alright everyone, into your corners, fists raised.

[seagypsywoman]

I think this item will fit into the Piracy thread. I'll copy it there.

[BC Mike]

CNBC will be talking about the port deal on telly Thursday morning. My redneck tractor buddies have been on top of this for a while. Even the Republican voters ( most ) are upset.
Michael

[nolatom]

There was an emergency waiver of the Jones Act in September '05, but this waiver is limited to allowing petroleum products to move between US ports by non-US flag ships. This was to allow petroleum products to move into the Gulf of Mexico following Katrina and Rita. I think it expired in October or November.

The personal injury and seaman's rights portions of the Jones Act were and are unaffected. Any contention to the contrary is bogus.

The port security issue is entirely separate from the Jones Act. P&O does lease many container terminals, including here in New Orleans, but they don't "control the port" by any means. I think the concern is coming from politicians rather than port authorities, but once political footballs start getting kicked around, it's hard to stop them.

[hirover]

The Bush administration is not selling the ports. A British company that has had the contracts to run the ports is being sold by it's owners to a company owned by the UAE. The operating rights were sold long ago. Yes it would be nice if we ran our own but apparently there isn't an American Company with the expertise and price to compete. Now having said that, bet the vast majority of the employees of these companies are Americans right on up to the senior managers. Yes they may send over one or two foreign employees but would be willing to bet they are the best and the brightest with a reasonably long history with the company.

The real problem with the ports is we have to depend on the original shipper for what is in a container. The shipper's invoice is what tells the port authority and shipping agents whether it's hazardous material and needs special handling, etc. Of course a terrorist wouldn't list the real contents if they wanted to ship something in. It would be so easy for the crazies to load up an entire container with c-4 and ship it over here. With the average container ship carrying around a 1,000 containers that get offloaded and trucked out in less than 24 hours, it's impossible to inspect even a minuscule number. A container load of C-4 would make a lot larger hole than Timothy McVeigh,s little bomb. Frankly, I'm surprized that there hasn't been a coodinated attack using loaded containers. Could it be we are keeping them too busy in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Me thinks this flap about the port operating company is being blown way out of proportion for political reasons. If we are going to deny this company the right to operate, then we'd better be kicking out every other foreign company operating at our ports.

BTW, both east and west ports for the Panama Canal are being run by a wholly owned subsidiary of the Chinese Communist Army. Now there is a scary thought.

Aloha
Peter O.

[BC Mike]

Peter has two good points.
The port deal is already foreign owned.
The whole thing is blown out of proportion.
We have an adversarial judicial system and government. It is the job of the opposition to raise a stink.
Quoting from a pro Republican source.
It took less time for the 3rd infantry and the marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard, than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after is car sank in the creek, drowning a passenger.
It took less time to take Iraq than count the votes in Florida.
And always a favourite of mine. Iraq and Detroit were about even in death the by guns in January 006.
Good luck with this, maybe I should bow out.
Michael

[CaptainK]

Micheal.

You won't get no arguement out of me!

Peter.

You hit the nail on the head. You are so absolutely right about what's going on, about the port deal!

There I said it.

[coyote]

The whole mess could have been avoided had the administration utilized a well thought out diplomatic approach long before they blindsided the public, and then announced that the President knew nothing about the deal until it was over. Sheesh. They've outraged the citizenry, embarassed a country that's the closest thing we have to an ally in the Mid East, and are now trying to recover the fumble. Someone needs to clue those guys in about how to finesse something as delicate as this issue through the shoals. (See? Mariner lingo. I'm learning)

[swagman]

..........to see this issue blown up and some of the scare issues raised. Not to mention how embarrassing it must be to one of the friendliest Arab states.

Let's just hope they don't overeact and adopt the same attitude - you can imagine how people would feel if the locals lobbied for US oil co's to sell out their investments in Arab oil / gas industry?

JOHN