Port Security and War on Terror - please explain

[smashmowf]

Sorry, but your comment was clearly designed to provoke negative responses from Bush fans...and the term "Bush lovers" in that context seems pretty clear to be a derogatory one.

Not that you don't have the right to say it...but don't whine when you get called on it.

A- wasnt whining.....B- dont feel I was called out.....C- I was merely explaining the intention of my post.

If the reader wishes to read far deeper into what I type (which you clearly did by stating that I "designed" a post to seek negative reponses) is their choice....however not my intent......how in the world "Bush lovers" is a derogatory statement puzzles me unless the reader is looking for conflict....is the term milk lovers derogatory?.....Redskin lovers? Porn movie lovers?...Boxing lovers?.....Internet lovers?....Truck Lovers?....Nope. :2cents:

[AbleDanger]

I've heard somewhere that only 5% of all containers coming into the US through ports are inspected... Is this really the case?

How do you feel about our port security?

I do not feel very good about it, and here is why. We attacked Iraq because we are afraid of WMDs. Dirty nukes, things like that. Now, making a WMD is one thing. Delivering it to the target is another.

Making a dirty nuke is much, much easier than making a transcontinental ballistic missle to deliver it. This means the best chance of us getting attacked by WMDs is by a WMD smuggled inside the country. Carrying WMD into US on an airplane is stupid. What's left? Ports and borders. What have we done NOTHING about?? PORTS and BORDERS.

5% of all containers coming into the US is a lot of containers, and it represents those containers that are a most-likely threat. There are certain ones we can rule out. Checking 100%, or even 50%, of all the containers would be a collosal and costly project. We've had a lot of success being proactive, hunting down and tracking terrorists on their own turf. If it is so easy to attack the U.S. through our ports, how come it has not already happened?

[visionary]

Fine, maybe I'm just being harsh right now, because I'm sick. But I did interpret it all the way that I said in the last post.

Or it could be that you don't realize how partisan your post seemed. Not THAT partisan relatively, but still enough to fit the parameters, in my mind.

"Good thread....I want to see the bush lovers explain this one...."

but maybe I'm just reading too much into this...or not.

[Seabee1973]

Have you not watched the news lately? We're letting the United Arab Emirates take over six of our ports .... I'm sure that will help.

I tend to stay away from these political discussions ... they get too heated too fast ....

But I've been a Bush supporter, but I don't agree with this decision. Not at all.

They are operating the Ports not providing security for the ports.

[CounterTrey]

Again, this is a very delicate issue. lets not try to Blame one side in this decision because if you step back away from it and try to understand what is at stake, I believe we need to study this issue further.

What is at Risk: Our security, our port security which has been pretty good over the last decade.

Number of AMerican Companies that could handle our ports or have expereince in this endeavour: 0!

Will port security still be handled by us? Yes (coast Guard)

Can we check every container that comes in - Hell No! We would shut down our economy if we did that - The delyas would piss everyone off

So what should we do?? The most roubling aspect of this deal though is, how do we know if the UAE at any level does NOT have ties to Al Queda?? With Bin ladens money and connections, I don't think it will be hard for him to get someone who works in this company or at a port that sends the US a lot of stuff. A dirty Bomb could be loaded on and sent to us without us knowing which port it is coming in on?

That what freaks me out - a scenario where someone working for this UAE company, gets sucked in by Bin laden and his millions.

Scary huh!

Discuss among yourselves

[Major Harris]

If it is so easy to attack the U.S. through our ports, how come it has not already happened?

don't ask that question. i already have, it won't be answered because the answer doesn't support the fear-mongering.

[Seabee1973]

A country that was accused of selling, funneling, providing nuclear components to Iran in the not so distant past. A country that 2 of the 911 terrorists came from A country with questionable motives at the very least is going to manage 6 ports on the east coast of the U.S.. Why would anyone living in a post 911 world think this is a good idea?? Just proves the point beyond a reasonable doubt that Bush is unfit for command. and the all the nonsense he spews about protecting America is just BS. This is about money and big business, a multi billion dollar deal. The President of the United States is willing and able to support this international commerece deal and blow off our security, The only thing WE THE PEOPLE can do is call Congress and remind them that in 257 days they will be asking us to support them, how can we do that if they do not support us??

we trained what 5 of the terrorist how to fly we have funneled money into terrist before

[AlexRS]

5% of all containers coming into the US is a lot of containers, and it represents those containers that are a most-likely threat. There are certain ones we can rule out. Checking 100%, or even 50%, of all the containers would be a collosal and costly project. We've had a lot of success being proactive, hunting down and tracking terrorists on their own turf. If it is so easy to attack the U.S. through our ports, how come it has not already happened?

What do you mean by "checking?"

GhostofAlvinWalton's post sort of showed how little I actually knew about the subject when posting this thread

I just figured that security of our ports should be a huge deal... we cannot possibly predict every possible enemy - so having a strong "last line of defense" against WMDs makes sense.

then again:

And after all the ports in the country start screening every container that comes in, a 30 ft. leisure boat will dock at a private pier loaded with some type of WMD. Just like the drug smugglers already do it.

Any questions?

Can we actually do this?

I think we absolutely have to. We cannot look inside every container, but we also cannot afford to rely on "fighting them over there."

I think the best way to deal with this situation (which will get worse) is to figure out ways to scan vast areas for specific WMD related things. I am talking about things like detecting traces of nuclear materials from space. I'm pretty hung up on that one because I live in DC :laugh:

Times are changing and so should our approach to things. What troubles me is this adminstration's seeming commitment to public view of security rather than security itself. :2cents:

[AlexRS]

That what freaks me out - a scenario where someone working for this UAE company, gets sucked in by Bin laden and his millions.

Scary huh!

Discuss among yourselves

Dude, that's what freaks everybody out and that's what we're talking about here.

If you want to REALLY get freaked out imagine this.

There is a process in place for packages. Paperwork comes in, gets analyzed. Based on that Customs decide to examine or not examine packages. What if -gasp- paperwork is made not to raise red flags?

The system should not rely on every component to function. Each component of security should be independent of others.

[visionary]

Heh, I think a lot of us knew this was coming.

"BREAKING NEWS

GOP congressional leaders are working on a compromise that may allow a Dubai company to manage six U.S. ports, CNN has learned."

www.CNN.com

what's up with the Democrats though?

[twa]

"That what freaks me out - a scenario where someone working for this UAE company, gets sucked in by Bin laden and his millions."

Why would the odds of someone selling out be higher than a brit ,chinese or dutch...or even a American?

My friend is on the Port Authority here and claims plans and security could easily be attained, and not for Millions

[AlexRS]

"That what freaks me out - a scenario where someone working for this UAE company, gets sucked in by Bin laden and his millions."

Why would the odds of someone selling out be higher than a brit ,chinese or dutch...or even a American?

My friend is on the Port Authority here and claims plans and security could easily be attained, and not for Millions

That's why I am so uncomfortable with a system based on "red flags." No red flags = smooth sailing.

Scanning only 5% of "potentially dangerous" shippments is only as good as determining what is "potentially dangerous." Somebody with reasoning ability or somebody even remotely familiar with the system can make packages slip through without raising those red flags.

There have to be multiple independent security systems rather than a "security process," so to speak.

[boobiemiles]

"That what freaks me out - a scenario where someone working for this UAE company, gets sucked in by Bin laden and his millions."

Why would the odds of someone selling out be higher than a brit ,chinese or dutch...or even a American?

My friend is on the Port Authority here and claims plans and security could easily be attained, and not for Millions

This ideology really scares me. It also shows the depth of understanding when it comes to what these guys are fighting and dying for. They beleieve that this is a calling, a devine duty. America is the great proponent to the rules of Allah. The chinese, dutch, or brits do not follow the same code. Money would be the reason the EAU could become a rogue agent, God is. Just the hint that they could harm us should stop this deal.

[Midnight Judges]

According to this article, Republicans have been weak on Port securityfor years now.

Hollings, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, along with Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., the top Democrat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, have relentlessly trawled for more funds to shore up port security. They and other lawmakers - mainly Democrats - have been critical of what they see as the Bush administration's shortchanging of security for the nation's seaports.

Oberstar blasted the administration's war supplemental budget for failing to provide enough money for port and maritime security.

"All Americans, whether you live in a port city or whether you live in Boise, Idaho, will benefit from that security," Oberstar said on the floor last month. "The impact on our economy and on all Americans if our nation's ports are closed down for a few weeks because of a terrorist attack is simply too great. Factories will close down. Refineries will run out of oil. Stores will run out of goods."

But attempts to address the issue in the supplemental budget debate got lost in the fog. Hollings failed in his attempts to add $1 billion for new security requirements under the Maritime Transportation Security Act, passed last year. And House Republicans defeated an amendment by Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, that included $1.5 billion for port security grants.

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0403/041503nj1.htm