It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Currently, the U.S. Coast Guard is enforcing a wide range of security measures on all ships entering U.S. ports. The Coast Guard has issued a temporary final rule changing the 24-hour Notice of Arrival requirement for ships entering U.S. ports to 96 hours before arrival at the first U.S. port. New special rules apply for all vessels carrying dangerous cargoes and additional information is also required in the Advance Notice of Arrival. The notice must now include a listing of all persons on board, crew and passengers, with date of birth, nationality, along with the appropriate passport or mariner’s document number. The Notice must also include the vessel name, country of registry, call sign, official number, the registered owner of the vessel, the operator, the name of the classification society, a general description of the cargo, and date of departure from the last port along with that port’s name.
Prior to September 11th, the Coast Guard suffered from significant funding shortfalls. During fiscal years 2000 and 2001, the Coast Guard was forced to reduce law enforcement operations by up to 30 percent due to insufficient funds. Both the fiscal year 2002 budget resolution and the House passed Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2001 (H.R. 1699) increased Coast Guard funding levels by $250-$300 million respectively to correct ongoing critical funding shortfalls. These funding shortfalls are similar to those experienced by the Department of Defense, including spare parts shortages and personnel training deficits. .
Originally posted by dgtempe
The ultimate goal here is to allow WMD's into our ports and scream "POLICE STATE" at the very least.
There's also the possibility of one or more going off in pre-designated areas of the country.
One way or another, the powers that be will get this accomplished.
Originally posted by WHOFLUNGGUM
I doubt that seriously! The only question I have concern about is the one about the 45 day review. I don't see anything wrong with the deal as long as proper channels were followed! I do however have a problem with circumventing standards. I do not see any reason to not follow proper channels and excercise every option as far as investigating, even if redundant, for the sake of national security.
Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
Why is President Bush so adament about transferring control of US seaports to UAE control?
What is the President's motivation to take such a controversial position?
Originally posted by bootmaker
You mention the Horses
I often have visions.
My last one was about horses.
Two horses were running in a lush green valley. At peace with one another and enjoying each others company.
A third one comes up to them and joins there party.
One turns into a mule and walks away.
Originally posted by bootmaker
This will give the Arabs direct control over shipping our military equipment out of Texas in Corpus Christy and other ports. i believe that a shipment would be hijacked or just simply disappear. I don't think these Muslims would fight other muslims to protect American Military Equipment.
It is a raw deal for America and we must not accept this or take it lightly.
Of course, depending on the deal of the weak- if it's Japan buying our computer firms, China buying our oil companies, or the UAE buying our ports, the capitalists who own American firms will be playing on all your patriotic xenophobic impulses to support their interests, because its easier than actually being competetive in a global marketplace.
Originally posted by WyrdeOne
It is easier than being competetive. I just started another thread about vietnamese catfish targetted by southern senators because it endangers the inefficient and inferior American catfish industry.