Home > Uncategorized > JOHN C. W. BENNET OF MPSINT.COM CALLS DR. JOHN A. C. CARTNER’S LLOYD’S LIST OP-ED OPPOSING TWIC PROGRAM “DIATRIBE”

JOHN C. W. BENNET OF MPSINT.COM CALLS DR. JOHN A. C. CARTNER’S LLOYD’S LIST OP-ED OPPOSING TWIC PROGRAM “DIATRIBE”

Saturday, April 23, 2011 Leave a comment Go to comments

Since When is Opposition to Wasteful & Fraudulent Government Programs

“Diatribe?”

Fanning the Controversy!

Is the TWIC Program a Wasteful Fraud or Not?

VS.
Mr. John C. W. Bennet   Dr. John A. C. Cartner

In my previous article below, Pioneering Patriot-Seaman Opens the Door to Second Amendment Rights on the Maritime Front at DHS/USCG NMSAC Meeting April 12, 2011, I gave John C. W. Bennet of Maritime Protective Services, Inc. the courtesy and respect to recommend to my readers to link over to Bennet’s blog to read more about the National Maritime Security Advisory Committee public meeting. I provided the link to Bennet’s blog. And what is the thanks I get!

I get Bennet attacking the credibility and authority of Dr. John A. C. Cartner‘s Lloyd’s List Op-Ed titled, Identity Card is US Maritime Hobgoblin, dated Februarty 15, 2011 by calling it “diatribe” implying Dr. Cartner’s Op-Ed can be ignored and dismissed without consideration. The word diatribe is nearly always used in an insulting disrepectful manner and alwys in argumentum ad hominem attacks on the individual instead of the argument itself. If Bennet’s position is the correct response to Dr. Cartner’s Op-Ed then I presume that Mr. John C. W. Bennet’s opinion of Rep. John Mica, Chairman, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee inviting TSA chief John Pistole and TWIC program manager John Schwartz to testify at the congressional committee hearing, titled Biometric IDs for Pilots and Transportation Workers: Diary of FailuresApril 14, 2011, on TSA and FAA failure to produce workable biometric TWIC cards for air crews and port workers is nothing more that a Red Herring?

As you can see from the Pistole and Shwartz links above neither one of them showed up to give their testimony.  However John Schwartz did appeared and spoke to the NMSAC committee on the morning of April 12, 2011, just two days before his scheduled appearance at the congressional meeting. But John Schwartz did not appear at that congressional hearing? What are Pistole and Schwartz hiding? Are the hiding waste and fraud behind the TWIC Program?

And what is John Bennet’s view on the House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform online bulletin, Chairman Issa Chastises ATF for Refusal to Comply with Subpeona, April 20, 2011. See Rep. Issa’s 6-page letter to Mr. Kenneth E. Melson, Acting Director, BATFE, dated April 20, 2011 with 11 redacted evidentiary Attachments (total 42-pages, including the letter). Does he support the abusive and corrupt BATFE? That’s at least two heads of federal agences and Mr. Schwartz as a subordinate to the head of the TSA failing to appear before congressional hearings. Does Mr. Bennet support TSA in their now apparent Enron-type scam?

Does Mr. John Bennet even take the time to Google facts and news before he solidifies his opinions in his blog? Or is it the world according to John Bennet? I wonder.

Because Mr. John Bennet apparently has no regard for the credibility nor the credentials of Dr. John A. C. Cartner’s or his Op-Ed It was my moral duty to notify Dr. Carner that Mr. Bennett had placed him in a defensive position in regard to his Lloyd’s List Op-Ed.

If Dr. Cartner responds to my email I will update my blog.

MY EMAIL TO DR. JOHN A. C. CARTNER & JOHN C. W. BENNET

Cc:’d TO U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. COAST GUARD HEADQUARTERS
NATL MARITIME SECURITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE (NMSAC)

FROM: Don Hamrick <ki5ss@yahoo.com>

To: Dr. John A. C. Cartner – Maritime Consulting Services
John C. W. Bennett – Maritime Protective Services, Inc.

Cc: Admiral Robert Papp – COMMANDANT – USCG; Rear-Admiral Paul Zukunft – USCG; CDR Davide Murk – USCG; Ryan Owens – NMSAC; “Capt. Jeff Monroe, NMSAC Chair; Kiefer, Kevin CAPT; CDR Carlos Torres – USCG; Noah Kroloff – DHS; Esther Olavarria – DHS; Rebecca Sharp – DHS; Alan Bersin – Asst Secretary Office of Intl Affairs – DHS; Charles Edwards – DHS; Richard Reback – DHS; Thomas Frost – DHS; Margo Schlanger – DHS; CRCL – DHS; Nelson Peacock – DHS; Eddie Gleason – DHS; Francine Kerner – DHS; OGC – DHS; Office of Intergovernmental Affairs – DHS;

FOR: DR. JOHN A. C. CARTNER

 NOTE: I have Cc:’d officials of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the National Maritime Security Advisory Committee. I recommend to Dr. Cartner that he include the Cc:’d recipients in his reply. 

On April 12 & 13, 2011 the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Coast Gaurd’s National Maritime Security Advisory Committee (NMSAC) held a public meeting hosted by the American Bureau of Shipping in Rosyln, Virginia to discuss various matters of maritime security. I attended the April 12th meeting but not the following day. I spoke to the committee using Dr. Carnter’s Op-Ed, Identity Card is US Maritime Hobgoblin, Lloyds List, February 15, 2011 as the basis for my own opposition to the TWIC Program.  

John C. W. Bennet of Maritime Protection Services, Inc., published his Op-Ed on his blog titled Results of April 12-13 Meeting of NMSAC – Part 2 on April 22, 2011 publicly attacking the Dr. John A. C. Cartner’s credibility and his Lloyd’s List Op-Ed  John C. W. Bennet has put Dr. John Carnter in the position of having to defend his Op-Ed against Bennet’s careless remark, to which I presume Bennet has or will inform NMSAC of his views in apparent opposition to my views in support of Dr. John A. C. Cartner’s Op-Eds on the TWIC Program.  Bennet’s editorial spin gives a psuedo-rosey picture on U.S. Government efforts at improving maritime security.

The last section of Bennet’s Op-Ed is presented here, annotated with my highlights, underlining and commentary in brackets for emphasis. Note Bennet’s use of the descriptive word “diatribe” to describe Dr. Cartner’s Op-Ed.  Did Bennet even take the time to fact-check Dr. John Cartner’s article, or to even check the Dr. John Cartner’s credentials for credibility? I don’t think so. I think John Bennet simply engaged in argumentum ad hominen attacks with his diatribe insult.

From that fact alone I have the impression that John Bennet is a an advocate for the TWIC Program even in defiance or ignorance of the facts I presented in my April 21, 2011 article that I posted to my own blog titled Whistle Blower Protection: Reporting TWIC Program as Waste/Fraud to Depart. of Labor—OSHA. Bennet had between 12 to 24 hours to check and recheck my blog to discover my Whistle Blower article before posting his Op-Ed on NMSAC’s meeting. 

Excerpt from Bennets Op-Ed:

Mariners’ Second Amendment Rights 

The final item considered in public by NMSAC on the first day of the meeting was a presentation on US seamen’s Second Amendment rights delivered by mariner Donald Hamrick.  Mr. Hamrick started by distributing copies of an anti-TWIC diatribe that had appeared in Lloyd’s List in February and recommending that the TWIC Program be abolished in view of the problems mentioned in the article and of the TWIC’s vulnerability to identity theft by RFID. [MY COMMENT: FALSE! I emailed the both the link and attached the PDF file of John C. W. Carner's article titled, Identity Card is US Maritime Hobgoblin asking Ryan F. Owens, Chief, Industry Outreach Branch, Domestic Ports Division (CG-5441), USCG HQ to make enough copies to distribute to the Committee and those in attendance. Therefore, I did NOT directly distributed Dr. Cartner's Op-Ed. Ryan Owens did. The only copy I distributed personally was to Mr. John Schwartz who did not appeart at a congressional hearing to explain TSA failures with the TWIC Program. John Bennet should get his facts straight before putting his fingers to his keyboard.] In the alternative, TWICs should have data added to state the mariner’s Second Amendment right to carry firearms openly in interstate commerce, which allowed a segue to the topic of his presentation.  In his view, Congress and the federal agencies are regulating as if there were no Second Amendment rights. [MY COMMENT: TRUE. I did say that because I have a U.S. Coast Guard Letter SEE ATTACHED, the Final Agency Action dated 2002 admitting to the fact that there were no federal laws or regulations for or against the "National Open Carry Handgun" endorsement on the Merchant Mariner's Document in 2002, and I doubt that has changed since 2002. That Final Agency Action that set me on the path to advocacy of seafarers rights in the federal courts since then upto and including today.] 33 CFR section 104.220 lists security duties imposed on merchant seamen. [MY COMMENT: TRUE] The US State Department’s efforts to determine the legalities in various foreign countries of carriage of self-defense weapons on board merchant ships could provide the basis for an international treaty on mariners’ rights to arms to protect against piracy. [MY COMMENT: TRUE] Mr. Hamrick concluded by asking NMSAC to consider taking up the rights of US mariners to have weapons on board their vessels. [MY COMMENT: TRUE - With the understanding that American seafarers have a right to travel interstate (as do all American citizens) and they have Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. The problem for American seafarers problem of traveling interstate to and from U.S. flag vessels docked in U.S. Ports with firearms under the Bill of Rights, specifically, the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, Tenth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments are ignored by the States and the United States Government as if that right does not exist.]With that, NMSAC went into working session before reconvening in public the morning of the 13th.  To be blogged about in the future: The Day 2 issues, including Maritime Domain Awareness and Information Sharing, Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (ISACs), this meeting’s formal Resolutions, future meeting dates, and agenda items for the next meeting.

 

 

About these ads
Categories: Uncategorized
  1. Monday, July 16, 2012 at 9:38 am

    Dr. Cartner’s points in his Lloyd’s List Op-Ed are well taken, but his choice of invectives look to fit the dictionary’s definition of “diatribe”. I think the issue would be better served if both Dr. Cartner and John Bennet toned it down.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: