Translation: Bush is in the pockets of big oil. Not big liquefied natural gas.

That's Halliburton's no-bid contract

FTA: The 395-7 vote margin on the $8.4 billion Coast Guard bill was well beyond the two-thirds needed to override a presidential veto. Seven Republicans voted against the measure.

Clearly he's on the wrong end of this one.

I think the real issues for the White House was stuff involving double-hulled oil tankers and cruise ship crime reporting.

/Can January 2009 come any quicker?

Dumbass.

LNG tankers don't need protection. They're only GIANT FLOATING BOMBS.

The White House has complained that the requirement would divert the Coast Guard from other high-priority missions and provide an "unwarranted subsidy" for LNG owners.

I can has irony?

Maybe this will be a first veto override. That would be a good start.

The White House has complained that the requirement would divert the Coast Guard from other high-priority missions and provide an "unwarranted subsidy" for LNG owners.

That's some funny shiat right there. It is soooo cute when W complains about something being to costly...pure gold when he invokes the excuse of "unwarranted" subsidies.

It will take generations to recover from this guy....

No, really, WTF?

The White House has complained that the requirement would divert the Coast Guard from other high-priority missions

Like what, catching those "evil drug runners"? F*cking bullshiat this is.

A tanker being hit is more of a problem than an LNG.

The reason it will get vetoed is because it violates international water restrictions.

Nothing to see here, move on,

Reminds me of the time he warned the Iraqi insurgents not to burn the oil over there. Forget human lives or hunting Bin Laden, the oil had to be protected above all else.

Bugs_Bunny_Practiced_Psychological_Warfare: Reminds me of the time he warned the Iraqi insurgents not to burn the oil over there. Forget human lives or hunting Bin Laden, the oil had to be protected above all else.

Crap. That's what I get for not reading the article first...

absoluteparanoia:

The reason it will get vetoed is because it violates international water restrictions.

Nothing to see here, move on,


Well, that seems pretty straightforward. Odd that it wasn't mentioned anywhere... would you be so kind as to cite a reference giving that as the administration's reason for a veto?

Bugs_Bunny_Practiced_Psychological_Warfare:

Crap. That's what I get for not reading the article first...


Happens to the worst of us...

FuturePastNow: LNG tankers don't need protection. They're only GIANT FLOATING BOMBS.

THIS. A LNG tanker goes up and it's like a small tac nuke or a large FAE going off. It would turn its current port facility into a steaming crater.

These are the exact things the Coast Guard needs to be babysitting. Can't afford it? Stop buying speedboats to interdict drug shipments.

Occam's Chainsaw: Stop buying speedboats to interdict drug shipments.

= Give drug gangs a larger volume to distribute, or more potent drugs to sell at the same volume. Assume a 50% of both. Then their markets expand and nationwide turf wars begin.

Start thinking past step 1, k?

DrBenway: Well, that seems pretty straightforward. Odd that it wasn't mentioned anywhere... would you be so kind as to cite a reference giving that as the administration's reason for a veto?

References in here/a> (new window) not a rickroll

They specificallly don't mention the distance from US shores. If we're using civil defense to protect private interests, we're violating most international water agreements.

USP .45: The Government Accountability Office says a terrorism attack on an LNG tanker arriving at a terminal could ignite an explosion and fire so fierce that people a mile away would be burned. But GAO auditors also say the Coast Guard is already stretched too thin to meet its own standards for protecting arriving LNG tankers from attack.

I was in the Coast Guard in the 90's and as much as I like Bill Clinton (not his wife so much), he gutted the Coast Guard during his first term. To this day, I don't understand why they closed Governor's Island in NYC and moved it all to Boston. Boston's an important port, but so is New York.

But to be honest, I don't think the Coast Guard has ever had the manpower or resources to do everything they're tasked with doing. But I may be biased.

DrBenway: Bugs_Bunny_Practiced_Psychological_Warfare:

Happens to the worst of us...

Evidently. Har, har.

big_pth: Translation: Bush is in the pockets of big oil. Not big liquefied natural gas.

No.

Translation: Stay the Hell away from ports for the next few weeks. Also, you might want to give Sibel Edmonds a tinkle.

USP .45: Occam's Chainsaw: Stop buying speedboats to interdict drug shipments.

= Give drug gangs a larger volume to distribute, or more potent drugs to sell at the same volume. Assume a 50% of both. Then their markets expand and nationwide turf wars begin.

Start thinking past step 1, k?

Step one is decriminalize and dry out the black market, but that's a discussion for another thread. This is the one about giant tanker ships full of high pressure flammables which occasionally park at some of our most vital ports.

absoluteparanoia: DrBenway: Well, that seems pretty straightforward. Odd that it wasn't mentioned anywhere... would you be so kind as to cite a reference giving that as the administration's reason for a veto?

References in here/a> (new window) not a rickroll

They specificallly don't mention the distance from US shores. If we're using civil defense to protect private interests, we're violating most international water agreements.

I wonder how all of this applies to the drug war....

Weird, must look into this to really understand this. Me thinks there is more than meets the eye.

"I am simply appalled that this administration would refer to protecting our families as an unwarranted and unnecessary subsidy," said Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., who chairs the House Transportation subcommittee that oversees the Coast Guard.

Our families that are working the docks? People, citizens sure but families?

Translation: It does not involve spying on American citizens, so I don't give a fark.

absoluteparanoia:

References in here/a> (new window) not a rickroll

They specificallly don't mention the distance from US shores. If we're using civil defense to protect private interests, we're violating most international water agreements.


Thanks for that; I understand and appreciate a bit of the basics of Admiralty Law, but my question was about where the administration was citing this as their reason for a veto, as opposed to their complaint, as noted in the linked AP story, that it would "divert the Coast Guard from other high-priority missions and provide an 'unwarranted subsidy' for LNG owners." If international law of the seas is their issue with the bill, why don't they just come out and say so? That would seem to be much more straightforward and less open to criticism.

Have you read the actual bill to know that it does indeed violate the international agreements you linked to?

Saiga410:

Our families that are working the docks? People, citizens sure but families?

If one of those things goes off, it'd do a fair bit of damage in a radius far beyond just the port itself.

absoluteparanoia: DrBenway: Well, that seems pretty straightforward. Odd that it wasn't mentioned anywhere... would you be so kind as to cite a reference giving that as the administration's reason for a veto?

References in here/a> (new window) not a rickroll

They specificallly don't mention the distance from US shores. If we're using civil defense to protect private interests, we're violating most international water agreements.

The thing about that is there are lots and lots of international treaties that go beyond the scope of your typical boundary at sea. For example, the Bering Sea is almost entirely under the jurisdiction of U.S. law in spite of international law.

Then there's other instances where the Coast Guard enforces U.S. law at sea for reasons of national security, without any treaty to back up our legal standing, which is the case for a fair number of drug interdiction related arrests.

Maritime law is perhaps the single most complicated area of law in the world, and nobody exploits it better than the U.S. Coast Guard. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but the Coast Guard does tend to walk a fine line, and U.S. Constitutional law doesn't always apply.

To be fair, the Coast Guard is severely overstretched. LNG terminals need to be protected, but so does virtually everything else. Between providing search and rescue, security for ports, finding drug smugglers, catching illegal aliens, and just general police work, the USCG just doesn't have the manpower or capital to do its job.

I can see why Bush would want to leave what the Coast Guard does up to its own discretion. When an organization has such small resources, it's unwise to begin dictating policy to them.

Of course, the Republicans routinely voted down legislation to give them equipment and greater funding, but, hey, who's counting?

absoluteparanoia: DrBenway: Well, that seems pretty straightforward. Odd that it wasn't mentioned anywhere... would you be so kind as to cite a reference giving that as the administration's reason for a veto?

References in here/a> (new window) not a rickroll

They specificallly don't mention the distance from US shores. If we're using civil defense to protect private interests, we're violating most international water agreements.


Fail. We do this all the time, treaties or not. And we should. I want you to think about what your saying and how completely wrong you are.

NayTX-14Paul, Ronald [R]

Surprise, surprise.

/dumbass

Only_A_Lad:

Between ... finding drug smugglers, catching illegal aliens... the USCG just doesn't have the manpower or capital to do its job.

Maybe it should leave certain things to the land-locked police forces instead of wasting manpower and resources on bullshiat?

big_pth: Translation: Bush is in the pockets of big oil. Not big liquefied natural gas.

Here's hoping my sarcasm filter is eschew and you aren't serious.

Shaggy_C: NayTX-14Paul, Ronald [R]

Surprise, surprise.

/dumbass

The funny thing is that this is one of the few things that is supposed to be responsible for under the bizarro version of the constitution that Ron Paul and his supporters wank off to.

CravenMorehead: Maybe this will be a first veto override. That would be a good start.

That happy event has already occurred (^).

/Please, congress, may I have some more?

absoluteparanoia: The reason it will get vetoed is because it violates international water restrictions.

Nothing to see here, move on,

Umm, no.

Murkanen: The funny thing is that this is one of the few things that is supposed to be responsible for under the bizarro version of the constitution that Ron Paul and his supporters wank off to.

I heard that "Providing for the Common Defense" was an innocuous line illegally interpreted by activist liberal judges to mean something other than individuals owning rocket launchers.

USP .45: Occam's Chainsaw: Stop buying speedboats to interdict drug shipments.

= Give drug gangs a larger volume to distribute, or more potent drugs to sell at the same volume. Assume a 50% of both. Then their markets expand and nationwide turf wars begin.

Start thinking past step 1, k?

So supply increases, drastically dropping the cost of illegal drugs. It becomes less beneficial to risk death for drug distribution. Turf wars wane.

Start thinking past step 2, k?

/hypothetical of complex and misunderstood relationships are retarded without extensive research

Murkanen

Well, it's not as if people coming from Asia are going to come over the Mexican border. And even if one doesn't think the goal of stopping illegal immigration is worthwhile, the USCG is critical to stopping human trafficking. Freeing sexual slaves is certainly a noble goal. And major cocaine smugglers use boats all the time. The Coast Guard is the only US organization able to combat this.

Now, one could argue that the Coast Guard could better use its money in fighting terrorism. I don't think this is the case, considering that terrorist attacks are relatively rare. But we could combat all of these problems if we simply increased the Coast Guard's funding and size.

Shaggy_C: Murkanen: The funny thing is that this is one of the few things that is supposed to be responsible for under the bizarro version of the constitution that Ron Paul and his supporters wank off to.

I heard that "Providing for the Common Defense" was an innocuous line illegally interpreted by activist liberal judges to mean something other than individuals owning rocket launchers.

That, and the words "states' rights" aren't contained in the phrase, "guard an enormous oceangoing bomb that can wipe a few square miles of real estate off the map".

The laws here are vague and arbitrary depending on the nation involved. I can only go off of my experience of going out to sea, We had to log and report the the time we were officially 3 miles off shore, 6 miles off shore, 12 miles off shore and 24 miles off shore. We did this regardless of the country we were off shore from. We also had to report when we crossed the 100 fathom line but that was for a different reason.

I know that there's an ex ships navigator (LCDR) around here, maybe he can shed more light on this.

That being said I can see no reason for a USCG escort inside the three mile limit to not be allowed for any ship if she requests it regardless of who she's flagged under or mandating an escort for certain types, flags or classes of ships. The USCG may deny to provide the escort (or keep the ship outside the three mile limit until it can provide the escort) for logistical reasons but it shouldn't specifically denied by law.

This exact type of shiat is the type of shiat that tells me this terrorism hysteria isn't real, meaning the threat isn't real. If it was real, they would automatically guard them...seeing they can make a huge motherfarking assplosion. But no, guarding against terrorism is a halfassed some of the time thing that neatly follows shifts, manpower and budgets.

You would think after 9/11 the pilots would close the cockpit door on the motherfarking plane. You would think the radiation detectors the look at the 18 wheelers would be used 100% of the time if there was a motherfarking threat. You would be wrong.

OMG! The sky is falling! We need bazillions, a 100 year war on multi fronts to protect America.

Bullshiat. I think this is a Wag The Dog...otherwise they would protect those things like they were the risk they are.

AND another thing, WTF is up with an Italian company trying to import nuclear waste into the Port of New Orleans? Link (Link to story)

20,000 tons of nuclear waste from Italy! WTF are we the world's dumping ground now too?

George W. Bush does not know his hole from an ass on the ground.

Voters were so stupid and elected officials were so afraid of this traitor that they let him run roughshod all over us.

I hope he is extraordinarily rendered after his term ends.

It might become easier due to Paraguay becoming less fascist.

yagottabefarkinkiddinme: This exact type of shiat is the type of shiat that tells me this terrorism hysteria isn't real, meaning the threat isn't real. If it was real, they would automatically guard them...seeing they can make a huge motherfarking assplosion. But no, guarding against terrorism is a halfassed some of the time thing that neatly follows shifts, manpower and budgets.

This.

I'm sick and tired of being told that the threats are so great that they should be allowed to tap phones without warrant and to torture people, but oh, it's too expensive to guard giant floating bombs. Either there's a real danger or there isn't.

At least we now know what "9/11: Electric Boogaloo" will be. As we can't keep everyone in fear without a reminder now and again.

Only_A_Lad:

Well, it's not as if people coming from Asia are going to come over the Mexican border.

They have to land somewhere, and, correct me if I'm wrong, the harbour authorities have direct lines to the local police force, INS, and the FBI.

And even if one doesn't think the goal of stopping illegal immigration is worthwhile, the USCG is critical to stopping human trafficking. Freeing sexual slaves is certainly a noble goal.

No argument from me there.

And major cocaine smugglers use boats all the time. The Coast Guard is the only US organization able to combat this.

As others have pointed out the solution to this is to come up with a drug policy that is a little less draconian and a bit more common sense. You might wind up with more people using drugs, but it would also kill the black market that drives a majority of the crime related to the drug trade. It may not be a popular idea, but it would help to alleviate a lot of the strain on manpower and resources of the various departments that make up the criminal justice system.

rynthetyn: I'm sick and tired of being told that the threats are so great that they should be allowed to tap phones without warrant and to torture people, but oh, it's too expensive to guard giant floating bombs. Either there's a real danger or there isn't.

I've got to agree with you here to some extent... Either there is or isn't a threat. You can debate how viable that threat is and the likelihood of that threat coming to fruition but you must balance that threat with the amount of damage it can cause. An unsecured LNG ship is different from a dirty bomb which is different from a pipe bomb in a mailbox. There is a definite difference between them and we depend on the people at the scene to differentiate between them and decide what is a threat and what isn't.

I'd rather give them the tools to do that than not. If you want to debate the reasons as to not allow other "Crimes" unrelated to the original reason for the tap then I'm in full agreement. I'll qualify that with the exception of crimes equal or worse than the original one being looked at. To be more clear, if I'm looking at pinning a murder on someone, a pot possession would be way off of my radar and that information would never be passed on.

I understand that not all local PD's are that ethical and you can argue that on a local level but I'm quite sure that the NSA could give a shiat about you buying a $120 bag of whatever weed your local dealer sold you.

The government is not really all that interested in you as an individual. Never has been, never will.