US Port Security under foreign control?

[questor]

if i'm not mistaken it's the OPERATIONS of the ports, not the SECURITY of the ports being handled by the Dubai group. why don't we find out what is really happening before we start up the Bush Hate Machine?

[Cedars]

I am glad to see that so many are wanting to take a hard look at this idea. I am not comfortable with a country from the middle east having such access to so many points of entry into this country.

 

While preparing to get into the tussle created by the thread Camp of the Saints, I looked into some of the problems with immigration.

 

From this link: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0266.pdf

 

Chennai India- 1998-99 Suspected applicant fraud: of 3,247 applications 45% suspected fraudulent. 21% confirmed fraudulent.

 

H1-B falsely reported need for foreign workers.

(H1-B created to allow non-immigrants in specialty occupations)

 

Religious Worker VISA program: Some religious orgs existed only to carry out immigration fraud

(created in '90 to allow for special immigrant and non-immigrant visas for religious workers, religious professionals, and ministers)

 

INS California Center found widespread L-1A visa fraud by foreign companies. A targeted group of 5,000 petitions fitting a particular criteria, 90% were fraudulent documents.

(L-1A created to allow foreign companies to send executives/managers to a US subsidiary)

 

There are many holes in our policies now. To allow a country with such ties to terrorism that deep of a grasp into such access points,I think it is best for national security for everyone to take a good hard look at whether the potential cost to america outweighs any potential political benefits by such a deal. Let the UAE invest in other more non vital aspects of america.

[Turtle]

if i'm not mistaken it's the OPERATIONS of the ports, not the SECURITY of the ports being handled by the Dubai group. why don't we find out what is really happening before we start up the Bush Hate Machine?

 

___We are finding out about it; that's the point of this thread. If I'm not mistaken, we already delineated the operations vs. security issue in some depth. (around post #8 & #9 I think)

___Republican & Democratic Congressmen & Senators alike plan to pass a bill to forestall this until they 'find out what is really happening'. Apparently, Bush only found out about the deal from news reports & he has vowed to veto any congressional bills.

___Good points Cedars; we hadn't yet touched on the immigration issue.

___I want to point out again that Customs & Coast Guard do have the primary security control, however, won't they have to share their measures & operations procedures with the company operating the ports? Won't the operators then be better situated to circumvent them?

___Just because I disagree with my president, doesn't mean I hate him. I'm a voter & by expressing my concerns here in the political science arena I am being politically active. The politicians work for me, or at least that's what my Constitution claims & I want them to hold up a minute & explain themselves on this one.:)

[Turtle]

___Coast To Coast AM radio talk show has set aside their regular programming to discuss the port fiasco tonight. The program starts at 10 PM Pacific time and runs 4 hours. While these guys do UFO & ghosty stuff, they also do excellent science programs with notable guests (Michio Kaku has done numerous lengthy interviews with the show's host George Noory). Here is a link to the programs website:

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/

[C1ay]

I'm not against Dubai Ports running the ports, but I do think they require some extra monitoring.

I pretty much agree with that. To just make a blanket decision that they are not allowed without giving a reason that specifically shows why they should not be allowed would send a wrong message.

 

If we want Muslims that do not support terrorism to denounce terrorism we can not treat them all as if they are all guilty.

[Racoon]

Somebody needs a cocktail and a nice game of GO with a good friend. :xx:

 

Somebody needs to quit playing Patty-Cake Politically Correct,

and Make Some Serious *** Changes!

 

'Cuz the Bush Administration has been Anything But Spectacular. :) :) :)

[Racoon]

I pretty much agree with that. To just make a blanket decision that they are not allowed without giving a reason that specifically shows why they should not be allowed would send a wrong message.

 

If we want Muslims that do not support terrorism to denounce terrorism we can not treat them all as if they are all guilty.

 

 

We need to Control our own Facilities.

They wouldn't allow us those same privledges.

 

I hate this One way Street Sh^t now.

You can't go to the Middle East without an Envoy, but lets roll out the Red carpet for them!

 

US ports.

Not Middle East Ports.

 

They have theirs,

lets not make ours theirs too..

[Turtle]

___The radio program is interesting so far, particularly the first guest Kelly Sweeny, a Master Mariner. He points out that foreign companies already run some port operations, the Chinese for example in LA. (the Chinese run the panama canal operations now by-the-by) He thinks the concern is not with the UAE company, but with the general lack of security in the shipping industry. He points out that regardless of who is running any US port, only 5% of all containers ever get checked out. Here's a web page he gave which has a lot of info on the maritime industry.

 

http://www.pacmar.com/

[C1ay]

We need to Control our own Facilities.

For the most part we do. The managing company, previously a British company BTW, just manages the flow of cargo at the global level. They decide which containers go on which boats at each port to maxmize the efficiency of global transport. At the local port level our own people are still responsible for security and the Harbormaster is still responsible for the port's traffic. Our own longshoremen still load and unload the vessels. All the work at our ports is still done by U.S. workers.

[questor]

we may as well face the fact that we have NO security in this country. our

borders are wide open, our shoreline is wide open and our ports are wide open, and the liberals do not want surveillance of communications. the only way to have security is to impose surveillance that well compromise what some people deem their ''civil rights''. which will it be? security or a wide open society? you can't have both.

[CraigD]

we may as well face the fact that we have NO security in this country.

While I think there are serious inadequacies in US port securities, I think it’s a great exaggeration to say we have NO security!

our borders are wide open, our shoreline is wide open and our ports are wide open, and the liberals do not want surveillance of communications.

This is at odds with the news articles that inspired this thread. Right now, it is the Bush administration – typically considered conservative, that is being criticized by many democratic congresspeople – typically considered liberal, for his support of a business deal that some think may reduce surveillance of shipping in some US ports. Legal or illegal wiretapping is not at question here.

the only way to have security is to impose surveillance that well compromise what some people deem their ''civil rights''. which will it be? security or a wide open society? you can't have both.

I disagree, as does the US Constitution, which is established on the principle that it is possible for a country to be secure from invasion and internal crime, while maintaining the rights of its citizens. The proposition that one must necessarily be sacrificed for the other is direct conflict with our laws, and smacks of the rhetoric of would-be dictators.

[Racoon]

I disagree, as does the US Constitution, which is established on the principle that it is possible for a country to be secure from invasion and internal crime, while maintaining the rights of its citizens. The proposition that one must necessarily be sacrificed for the other is direct conflict with our laws, and smacks of the rhetoric of would-be dictators.

 

OK Craig, that makes sense :)

 

How exactly can We, as legal citizens and elected officials, secure the country more appropriately??

How can we secure more people from more threats??

[TheFaithfulStone]

the only way to have security is to impose surveillance that well compromise what some people deem their ''civil rights''. which will it be? security or a wide open society? you can't have both.

 

To you I shall quote Ben Franklin:

They that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

Back to the issue at hand. I don't think anything will come of the Dubai Ports thing - but like I said, I think it would be good to check into it - make sure they haven't been infiltrated by terrorists or somethings. In fact, I think we should do this with ANY company which has access to potential vectors for attack.

 

I don't think the fact they are based in the UAE means they need to prove they are more trustworthy than some British company, but I do think that it calls into sharp relief the fact that we should have been screening these companies more thouroughly all along.

 

Think of how easy it might be, if Dubai Ports controlled the logistics of "port to port" shipping for a terrorist who has infiltrated into middle management, to "accidentally" route a crate full of radiological materials to Iran or something. The fact that they are based in the UAE doesn't make them terrorists, it just makes terrorists their next door neighbors - we might wanna check to make sure the neighbors aren't looking in the window. (Or stealing the wifi, for a more modern analogy.)

 

TFS

[Turtle]

While I think there are serious inadequacies in US port securities, I think it’s a great exaggeration to say we have NO security!This is at odds with the news articles that inspired this thread. Right now, it is the Bush administration – typically considered conservative, that is being criticized by many democratic congresspeople – typically considered liberal, for his support of a business deal that some think may reduce surveillance of shipping in some US ports.

 

___Actually, it is Republican congress people wanting to pass legislation to slow this, as well as Democrats.

___To clarify again, the Chinese run several terminal operations already, including a terminal in LA. Their military generals own/run this company.

___The UAE company is also government/state owned; it is not a private company.

___I just woke & haven't seen any news yet, but revelaed on the radio program last night is that this deal is for 8 ports; the other two are in Texas (Corpus Christi & I forget the other)

[CraigD]

… How exactly can We, as legal citizens and elected officials, secure the country more appropriately??

How can we secure more people from more threats??

Like many such questions, this one has a tactical, a strategic, and a risk assessment answer.

 

Tactically, I think the most severe “asymmetrical warfare”/terrorist threat to the US, and many other nations, involves the smuggling of large weapons (eg: bombs) via ship-born containers.

 

Currently, customs and shipping policy conducts random inspections of such shipping. This approach was intended primarily to detect non-weapon contraband smuggling and systematic financial fraud from export/import companies, and is not well suited to preventing the smuggling of one of a few containers of weapons.

 

I can see only 2 approaches to preventing this threat: dramatic increases in customs inspections, and improved spying in places likely to originate such shipments. Only the first approach seems very reliable to me. Since all shippers already consent to such inspections on-demand, they present no threat to the civil rights of any US or foreign citizens.

 

Despite heightened post-9/11 effort to develop devices such as large x-ray scanners capable of quickly inspecting containers, I fear such increase in customs inspections might prove unaffordable, even to countries such as the US.

 

Strategically, I believe the best way for all countries to be secure from threats is through improved relations between them. Religious and civil leaders should refrain – or be legally restrained - from promoting tension among individuals and states for short-term, personal and political gains. Israel and Palestine are, I believe, central problems that must be resolved for this to happen. This is an old and very difficult problem.

 

From a risk assessment approach, we must accept the possibility that the threat from foreign nations and nationals to our countries and persons are, in the numeric formalism of risk assessment, very small. Effective Legislation, enforcement, and promotion of such things as improved automobile safety, environmental regulations, and access to and style of healthcare are, by nearly any measure, thousands of times more effective in assuring public life and wellbeing than even anti-terrorism measures that are completely successful and effective.

 

In short, I believe WE, as citizens, should seriously question the reality being presented to us by our leaders and the media, be strongly suspicious of their motives, and intolerant of their deception. Our government’s legitimacy – and, arguably, the legitimacy of any government - rests entirely in our consent to being governed as we are. I believe many of us are being tricked into electing leaders who advance policies counter to our best interest. What to do about this, is, alas, yet another old and difficult problem.

[Turtle]

Like many such questions, this one has a tactical, a strategic, and a risk assessment answer.

 

Tactically, I think the most severe “asymmetrical warfare”/terrorist threat to the US, and many other nations, involves the smuggling of large weapons (eg: bombs) via ship-born containers.

 

 

 

___I agree on the nuclear-bomb-in-a-box scenario; most of the guests on the radio show pointed this up. Apparently many containers get screened at the departing port; still the 5% deal though. One fella said that 95% are inspected that come into some Asian ports (Taiwann or Hong Kong? I haven't waked up enough to remember yet:eek_big: )

___A nuke going off in one of our large ports is likely to shut all the ports for months.

 

___Someone also pointed out that most of the Iranian Mullahs own lavish homes in UAE.

___After I shake out the cobwebs & watch some news (propoganda), we'll see what developed overnight. :)

[InfiniteNow]

___I just woke & haven't seen any news yet, but revelaed on the radio program last night is that this deal is for 8 ports; the other two are in Texas (Corpus Christi & I forget the other)

Likely Houston or Galvaston...

http://www.bidc.state.tx.us/maps/TX-ports.htm