Control of US ports: Bush selling out on US security?

[edward]

He who controls the ports contols security.

No. That is not correct. Primary responsibility for security is in the hands of the US Coast Guard. And that includes oversight of the physical security of the facility itself - not just the water.

You are correct Russ. I change that to: He who controls the ports has the opportuntity and means to do just about anything conceivable.

I would love for the Coast Guard to have the funding it needs to do it's job. It does not. The larger container ships now carry over 5,000 individual containers. That is a lot to be inspected, and we currently can only cover about 6% of the total. I think that it is customs who do the actual inspections in conjunction with the Coast Guard who provides an armed presence if necessary.

But since it is physically impossible to inspect every container we must fall back on those who control and manage the loading of each container, and the handling of all containers to insure security. DB ports also owns a number of facilities in Asia which load and ship containers to America. As I said before this leaves them in control of both ends of the shipments, and I have a problem with that.
http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/stories/2005/02/21/daily19.html

A House of Cards

Ostensibly, the flurry of U.S. government initiatives since 9/11 suggests substantial progress is being made in securing the global trade and transportation system. Unfortunately, all this activity should not be confused with real capability. For one thing, the approach has been piecemeal, with each agency pursuing its signature program with little regard for other initiatives. There are also vast disparities in the resources that the agencies have been allocated, ranging from an $800 million budget for the Department of Energy’s Megaport initiative to no additional funding for the Coast Guard to support its congressionally mandated compliance to the ISPS Code. Even more problematic are some of the questionable assumptions about the nature of the terrorist threat that underpin these programs.

http://www.feer.com/articles1/2006/0601/free/p005.html

 

[russ_watters]

You are correct Russ. I change that to: He who controls the ports has the opportuntity and means to do just about anything conceivable.

Huh? "Anything conceivable" is an awfully vague hypothetical.

I would love for the Coast Guard to have the funding it needs to do it's job. It does not.

True or not, that doesn't have anything to do with the issue we're talking about. That isn't something that is changing with the sale of this British company. Except...

But since it is physically impossible to inspect every container we must fall back on those who control and manage the loading of each container, and the handling of all containers to insure security. DB ports also owns a number of facilities in Asia which load and ship containers to America. As I said before this leaves them in control of both ends of the shipments, and I have a problem with that.
http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/stories/2005/02/21/daily19.html

Could you be more specific: are you saying (even hypothetically) that they could be incompetent or in league with the terrorists? How is that different from any other company? Are we back to the they-are-Islamic-so-they-must-be-terrorists thing that loseyourname pointed out? I'm sorry, but as gung-ho for national security as I am (and I am - I still support the Iraq war), I will not make that connection. If we allow ourselves to do that, we become what the terrorists are saying we are: enemies of Islam itself.

 

[russ_watters]

For more info on what exactly "port operations" entails, I googled and pulled a random site: http://www.portofmelbourne.com/portoperations/ There are several subheaders:

-Channel management
-Port mapping system
-Port facilities
-Terminal operators
-Road & rail services
-Property leasing
-Handling dangerous cargoes
-Notices to mariners & port users
-Port security

That's Melborne - in the US, a few of those things belong to NOAA or the Coast Guard, but I think that gives the general idea.

 

[edward]

Huh? "Anything conceivable" is an awfully vague hypothetical. True or not, that doesn't have anything to do with the issue we're talking about. That isn't something that is changing with the sale of this British company. Except... Could you be more specific: are you saying (even hypothetically) that they could be incompetent or in league with the terrorists? How is that different from any other company? Are we back to the they-are-Islamic-so-they-must-be-terrorists thing that loseyourname pointed out? I'm sorry, but as gung-ho for national security as I am (and I am - I still support the Iraq war), I will not make that connection. If we allow ourselves to do that, we become what the terrorists are saying we are: enemies of Islam itself.

You just don't get it Russ. Who attacked us on 911? Who would be the most likely to attack us again? The UAE is Islamic, the UAE refused to curb terrorist funding in their country until 2004, the UAE has only been co-operative about terrorism for the last year. That is not a good track record by any standard.

 

[crazycalhoun]

You just don't get it Russ. Who attacked us on 911? Who would be the most likely to attack us again? The UAE is Islamic, the UAE refused to curb terrorist funding in their country until 2004, the UAE has only been co-operative about terrorism for the last year. That is not a good track record by any standard.

I'm at a loss as to how personal outrage, leaps in logic and questionable claims of fact (particularly about UAE's track record in the war on terror) amount to a convincing argument. Would somebody on the otherside like to walk through loseyourname's first post point by point and explain where he's wrong? After all, I think we can all agree with SOS that one-line dismissals of cogent, comprehensive posts like loseyourname's is infuriating.

 

[SOS2008]

This is all over the news, e.g.:

Ridge: White House should explain port deal
Homeland Security ex-chief says lawmakers' concerns legitimate
Monday, February 20, 2006
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/20/port.security/

At the minimum, lawmakers are asking to be involved and informed, which is very legitimate. It was Schumer that used the term "outsource":

"Outsourcing the operations of our largest ports to a country with long involvement in terrorism is a homeland security accident waiting to happen," he said.

It was Menendez who made reference to foreign governments owning/controlling U.S. ports:

Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., told The Associated Press he will introduce legislation to prohibit companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from running port operations in the United States. Menendez said his proposal would effectively block state-owned Dubai Ports World from realizing gains from its purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5626672,00.html

I'd like to know how my posts have gone "outside the lines" or box that you can only think within.

As long as it is related to the topic, since when is discussion contrained to one member's post or even to points made in the OP?

 

[crazycalhoun]

I'd like to know how my posts have gone "outside the lines" or box that you can only think within.

I'm not sure about how you've approached the boundaries of discussion, but I'm pretty sure you haven't addressed a single substantive point raised by loseyourname.

 

[Moonbear]

But since it is physically impossible to inspect every container we must fall back on those who control and manage the loading of each container, and the handling of all containers to insure security. DB ports also owns a number of facilities in Asia which load and ship containers to America. As I said before this leaves them in control of both ends of the shipments, and I have a problem with that.

How is this different from a British company, or even a US company operating the ports? If the Coast Guard is too underfunded to do their job, then push for better Coast Guard funding; I agree that having enough Coast Guard vessels and personnel to patrol the amount of shipping traffic around those ports is important, but I'm failing to see how a company not charged with that responsibility is supposed to do a better job catching a container with something dangerous inside it than anyone else would?

 

[Art]

To use an analogy I think Edwards point is that most folk would be somewhat concerned if their bank subcontracted their security and money delivery to a company with a record of armed robbery.

 

[crazycalhoun]

To use an analogy I think Edwards point is that most folk would be somewhat concerned if their bank subcontracted their security and money delivery to a company with a record of armed robbery.

And I think the other side's point is that analogy is specious at best.

 

[Integral]

From Russ

Yeah, it looks like a politician blustering over nothing to me.

This is an argument?
From LYN

But the ports were all British-owned post 9/11, which is really my point.

Really, the question is, should it remain in foreign control?

From Russ

Show us some imagination then, edward - just saying we're wrong is not an argument.

Bingo, Russ, and to this point in the thread that is all you have done.

From Edward

I wasn't worried much about the British security at the British owned ports in the USA.

But why shouldn't we have been. Clearly getting unauthorized materials into a container is not easy or we would have already addressed the issues. Must we wait till AFTER the disaster to take action?

From LYN

Okay, I see that concern. Then I ask why you think this is going to happen. I do not have the official payroll slips, but I can only imagine that US port security (that which is not carried out by the Coast Guard or Port Authority polices or other state organizations) is staffed by Americans, not by people that are either Brits or Arabs, the reason being that the ports are located in the US, and staff is presumably not going to commute across an ocean to work. Also, why do you think the staff is likely to change at all? This UAE-based multinational is something of a holding company, right? They'll probably install new management, but why would they layoff all of the currently employed security personnel only to hire and train new staff? And why would they hire Arabs? How many Arabs even live in these port cities and are both qualified for these positions and in need of employment?

The point is, it is not necessary for a entire staff change to present a danger. It is only necessary that some 2nd or 3rd level manager do a "favor" for family or friends. That is how easy it would be for terrorist to get into the system on BOTH ends of the shipment. It is not necessary for an entire ship be waylayed, the CG does not board every vessel and check every container, it simply can't. The danger could be contained in a few cubic feet of unused space in a container. It is the last person to close the container and the first to open it which define the danger. The danger currently exists and has existed. Have we been lucky or is the system perfect and impenetrable. I believe more of the first then the the second. To me it seems that to but an Arab corporation in charge of this cannot REDUCE the danger. The further down the corporate latter you go the more likely you are to find someone who is sympathetic to the anti US factions. I am not concerned about those at the top of the ladder, it is the broad base where the danger lies.

Russ, while I appreciate your support of the CG, this is not a CG problem, unless the CG starts to board every container ship to inspect every container. In reality all the CG can do is regulate the entry of the ship, not the unauthorized content of a container.
From Cyrus

It is not unrealistic to suppose that if one or more members of senior management wanted to bring something into America surreptitiously they could do so

As I said above this is not a management level decision, if it were I would be much less concerned. This is a dock level decisions. We must trust that the people loading and unloading the containers do not have the opportunity or ability to tamper with them. This is true no matter who is controlling the port.

From Cyrus

Now, there has been a disconnect between the NSA and the White House when it comes to how reported intelligence has been selectively manipulated. For this reason, I believe the best thing in this situation would be to have to NSA, CIA, etc put on the record an official overall approval or disapproval of the UAE takeover. By doing so, it helps to eliminate the possibility of the White House manipulating the recommendations of the NSA, et al as they have been known to do in the past.

So I should just trust the Bush administration to watch out for me.

Unfortunately our wonderful CIA has a history of bungling, now I should trust them to do something right.~^ I will not sleep tonight.

The fundamental issue here is that we must be able to guarantee the security of every container from point of origin to destination. Will this change, change anything? Perhaps not, but do we need to change how we handle the containers to ensure the safety of our nation and our citizens.

We need to be proactive in preventing terrorist from using shipment containers from importing WMD. To deny the possibility of this is short sighted and down right foolish. Remember, nobody purposely flew and airliner into a building until 911.

 

[crazycalhoun]

The point is, it is not necessary for a entire staff change to present a danger. It is only necessary that some 2nd or 3rd level manager do a "favor" for family or friends.

What would a mid tier manager, a process engineer, or whatever imported suit makes your case, be doing unattended with a container during operations? More importantly, what could he possibly do unattended? I mean, let's be a little realistic here people. Port operations is heavy industry stuff, and the only place where one or two guys (with a handful of European gunmen)--no matter what his authority--can pull off something like switching, cracking or sealing a container in the dead of night is Hollywood.

 

[edward]

And I think the other side's point is that analogy is specious at best.

Have you read any of the links? Good God we have thousands of Islamics imprisoned, but would allow others with a dismal record of co-operation to have control of the PORT OF NEW YORK plus 5 others. The wokers at the Port of New York watched the twin towers collapse! Do you really think that they will meet their new bosses with big hugs and teddy bears?

We do not live in a nice friendly compassionate world. Hasn't anyone noticed that we are at war with Islam. American soldiers are dying to try to stop Islamic radicals from killing Islamic "not so radicals".
http://biz.yahoo.com/ibd/060217/issues.html?.v=1

In a deal that could not have occurred on Sept. 12, 2001, the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment, a Treasury Department interagency panel that reviews foreign investments, has approved a $6.8 billion deal granting a Dubai-based company, Dubai Ports World, management of the ports in New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Miami, Baltimore and New Orleans.

Dubai is one of the seven small states that make up the United Arab Emirates (UAE). It is an Arab federation that Marwan al-Shehhi, one of the 9-11 hijackers, called home and where al-Qaida has recruited, traveled and roamed freely. Much of the operational planning for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon took place inside the UAE

The Bush administration considers the Emirates an ally in the war on terror. But the Treasury Department has been largely stonewalled by the Emirates in trying to track al-Qaida's bank accounts. U.S. officials have said money for the 9-11 attack was wired through the UAE banking system.

 

[Integral]

What would a mid tier manager, a process engineer, or whatever imported suit makes your case, be doing unattended with a container during operations? More importantly, what could he possibly do unattended? I mean, let's be a little realistic here people. Port operations is heavy industry stuff, and the only place where one or two guys (with a handful of European gunmen)--no matter what his authority--can pull off something like switching, cracking or sealing a container in the dead of night is Hollywood.

Must I restate the obvious. It is the mid and lower level manager who HIRE the lower level workers. They don't have to steal it, they only need to open it.

 

[crazycalhoun]

Have you read any of the links? Good God we have thousands of Islamics imprisoned, but would allow others with a dismal record of co-operation have control of the PORT OF NEW YORK plus 5 others. The wokers at the Port of New York watched the twin towers collapse! Do you really think that they will meet their new bosses with big hugs and teddy bears?

I think they work for Port Authority.

We do not live in a nice friendly compassionate world.

And unfortunately we live in a world where those who express such love for the facts are often caught without them. My theory is that Hollywood's conditioned us to attach ethnic and cultural perception of multinationals with roots outside of the US. I don't think David Sanborn counts as an Arab or a Muslim by any standard.

 

[crazycalhoun]

Must I restate the obvious. It is the mid and lower level manager who HIRE the lower level workers. They don't have to steal it, they only need to open it.

Um, not in the case of NY Port Authority. Can't speak on the other issue. And what's to stop DHS from reviewing longshoreman hires where they occur?

 

[edward]

What would a mid tier manager, a process engineer, or whatever imported suit makes your case, be doing unattended with a container during operations? More importantly, what could he possibly do unattended? I mean, let's be a little realistic here people. Port operations is heavy industry stuff, and the only place where one or two guys (with a handful of European gunmen)--no matter what his authority--can pull off something like switching, cracking or sealing a container in the dead of night is Hollywood.

You are only looking at a small picture. Tunnel vision gave us 911.
With 5,000 containers on one ship and ten thousand more in the intermodal process, exactly who would be watching each one. Again no one is looking at the Fact that DB ports also owns facilities in Asia. They control both ends of the supply chain. Something big coming in from outside of the country is the big danger here.

 

[crazycalhoun]

You are only looking at a small picture. Tunnel vision gave us 911.

Then tell us how your terrorists crack, seal or switch containers without the aid of work crews.

With 5,000 containers on one ship and ten thousand more in the intermodal process, exactly who would be watching each one.

I'm not sure "intermodel" is the word you're looking for, and I know you haven't addressed my point. Yes, we all know there are lots of containers. We also know that there is no way presently of centrally determining the contents of even a sizable fraction of those containers. On the other hand, containers are huge and heavy. So use your big picture vision and box-breaking super-thought and tell us how a change of office furniture on the 60th floor of a downtown high rise is going to endow terrorists with the superhuman strength.

Again no one is looking at the Fact that DB ports also owns facilities in Asia. They control both ends of the supply chain.

Nobody's arguing the point because you're not arguing that we seize control of the ports overseas.

 

[edward]

Make that Intermodal. or sometimes transmodal is used.

 

[Integral]

Then tell us how your terrorists crack, seal or switch containers without the aid of work crews.



I'm not sure "intermodel" is the word you're looking for, and I know you haven't addressed my point. Yes, we all know there are lots of containers. We also know that there is no way presently of centrally determining the contents of even a sizable fraction of those containers. On the other hand, containers are huge and heavy. So use your big picture vision and box-breaking super-thought and tell us how a change of office furniture on the 60th floor of a downtown high rise is going to endow terrorists with the superhuman strength.



Nobody's arguing the point because you're not arguing that we seize control of the ports overseas.

I certianly am glad to hear that it is impossible gain unauthorized access to a container, even with inside support.

 

[crazycalhoun]

I certianly am glad to hear that it is impossible.

The threat your imagining? Probably.

 

[Cyrus]

One minor nitpick, that was not me who said that. You must have had my name suck in your head when you put another person’s quote.

From Cyrus

Quote:

It is not unrealistic to suppose that if one or more members of senior management wanted to bring something into America surreptitiously they could do so

As I said above this is not a management level decision, if it were I would be much less concerned. This is a dock level decisions. We must trust that the people loading and unloading the containers do not have the opportunity or ability to tamper with them. This is true no matter who is controlling the port.

Ok, NOW on to what I said

From Cyrus
Quote:

Now, there has been a disconnect between the NSA and the White House when it comes to how reported intelligence has been selectively manipulated. For this reason, I believe the best thing in this situation would be to have to NSA, CIA, etc put on the record an official overall approval or disapproval of the UAE takeover. By doing so, it helps to eliminate the possibility of the White House manipulating the recommendations of the NSA, et al as they have been known to do in the past.

So I should just trust the Bush administration to watch out for me.

Unfortunately our wonderful CIA has a history of bungling, now I should trust them to do something right.~^ I will not sleep tonight.

The fundamental issue here is that we must be able to guarantee the security of every container from point of origin to destination. Will this change, change anything? Perhaps not, but do we need to change how we handle the containers to ensure the safety of our nation and our citizens.

We need to be proactive in preventing terrorist from using shipment containers from importing WMD. To deny the possibility of this is short sighted and down right foolish. Remember, nobody purposely flew and airliner into a building until 911.

While I agree that the Bush administration has proved that we simply cannot trust them to not manipulate the intelligence reports, the question still remains as to who we will get our intelligence from. Earlier, Art provided an excerpt from an article where Rep. Peter King, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee made the following statement:

"I'm aware of the conditions and they relate entirely to how the company carries out its procedures, but it doesn't go to who they hire, or how they hire people"

Now this is a debatable point. In my opinion, it is something that can be resolved for the following reasons: (1) it is illegal to hire a citizen who does not have a valid work permit inside the United States. So this helps to limit a sudden influx of foreign workers to US ports (This of course assumes they don't just hire them illegally with forged papers; but again that could be checked with stringent government checks, something that should be in place regardless of who owns operations of the ports). (2) Legislation can be passed so that any international hires must go through a background check by the government. This does one of two things, puts their name and information into a database and searches for ties to known terrorists. (3) If the UAE already owns major ports outside of the US, then it is a fallacy to think that they would allow terrorists to put a weapon inside a container in the US. The probability strongly supports that they would place a weapon inside a container at a port of their control that lies outside the US where restrictions are lax.


Next point,

Unfortunately our wonderful CIA has a history of bungling, now I should trust them to do something right.~^ I will not sleep tonight.

Yes, that is a fair assessment of the CIA; however, we then have to ask ourselves the following question. (a) Are we going to dismiss what the CIA reports in terms of security? If the answer to this is yes, then it means we cannot trust them for any intelligence. They have more information than we do, so it is simply not fair for us to pick and chose when we think the CIA is right. (b) we go with what the CIA says, but we put their asses on the line by holding them accountable for stringent surveillance and wire tapping of the port management employees and the United Arab Emirates, as they are not US citizens and can be surveilled.

The fundamental issue here is that we must be able to guarantee the security of every container from point of origin to destination. Will this change, change anything? Perhaps not, but do we need to change how we handle the containers to ensure the safety of our nation and our citizens.

Yes and No. That is the theoretical issue, as we simply cannot guarantee the security of every container from point of origin to destination. We can increase the number of random checks on containers entering the US ports, but that is the most we can do. How we handle containers is something that is totally independent from who owns the ports. It is not the job of the port owners to act as customs agents or the Coast Guard. As I previously alluded to, a terrorist does not necessarily have to go though the UAE owned port, for all we know it could come from a ship located in Central America to a port on the west coast.

We need to be proactive in preventing terrorist from using shipment containers from importing WMD. To deny the possibility of this is short sighted and down right foolish. Remember, nobody purposely flew and airliner into a building until 911.

Yes, and I too do not deny the possibility; however, even if the port were put into US control, the threat would not be substantially less than in control by the UAE for the reasons of necessity to put the WMD into a container at a foreign port, not a domestic port.


(For some reason my PF went crazy and would not let me post or edit my post, sorry about that if you saw some quotes with no context.)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I am still trying to find the quote - please post if you spot it - but the news services are citing Chertoff who explained that we have to "balance national security with free trade".

This is a national security issue and not a sale of widgets. Again, it makes one wonder whose side these guys are on. Above all, Chertoff should be the first one objecting to this; if nothing else on principle.

Edit: Here we go:

We have to balance the paramount urgency of security against the fact that we still want a robust global economy

-Chertoff
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8FSU0J00.htm?campaign_id=apn_sbiz_up&chan=sb

This from the guy who lead us through Katrina

 

[SOS2008]

Do you remember this?

ICE ARRESTS 17 ILLEGAL WORKERS EMPLOYED BY MILITARY SUBCONTRACTOR THAT ALLEGEDLY IGNORED NO-HIRE WARNINGS - http://www.ice.gov/graphics/news/newsreleases/articles/051130sandiego.htm

Maybe it doesn't matter who's running the show.

 

[Moonbear]

Then tell us how your terrorists crack, seal or switch containers without the aid of work crews.

Integral already addressed this...the managers are the ones hiring the work crews and assigning shifts. Right now, there is no law that says they have to hire U.S. citizens, and I know that because that's what Congress is scrambling to do now, create such a law. For that matter, even with such a law, they could still overlook faked IDs. One of the people I spent Christmas with cannot get a passport right now because she was born in Hudson County, NJ, where there were so many fraudulently issued birth certificates (real birth certificates from the Hudson County Office of Vital Statistics, not ones someone forged on a computer somewhere) that they cannot be used as ID for obtaining a passport. That's one of the northern counties in NJ that includes Jersey City and is just across the river from Manhattan.

As part of the investigation, federal agents executed a search warrant of the HCOVS on Feb. 18, 2004, which resulted in the seizure of hundreds of suspect Certificates of Live Birth which falsely indicated that the named individuals were born in Jersey City, when in fact, they were born outside the United States and were in the United States illegally.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nj/publicaffairs/NJ_Press/files/ande1028_r.htm

And the news story on it:

Imagine being told you'd never been born. Or rather, that records of your birth were no longer valid.

Last month, thousands of Hudson County, N.J., residents got that unnerving news, after hearing that their birth certificates had been declared invalid because of an ongoing fraud investigation at the Hudson County Clerk's office, just across the river from Manhattan. The U.S. State Department had shut down passport operations at the clerk's office after an investigation uncovered alleged document fraud at the office -- specifically, sale of fraudulent birth certificates.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5946145/

Or, you can just outright hire corrupt security:

Newark, NJ -- New Jersey Attorney General Peter C. Harvey today (Feb 3, 2004) announced that a corruption investigation has resulted in the indictment of Newark-based Haynes Security, Inc. and the company’s President and Corporate Executive Officer (CEO) on corruption-related charges which include bribery, theft and conspiracy. The criminal indictment also charges a former PSEG corporate manager with receiving thousands of dollars from Haynes Security during the period Haynes provided security services to the energy company.

"We are continuing to aggressively investigate and prosecute public corruption cases whether the acts are committed by elected officials or corporate officers seeking to feather their nest at public expense," Attorney General Harvey said. "The significant results obtained through this ongoing investigation and indictment allege that one of New Jersey’s largest security firms chose to evade the laws regulating security services and to engage in corrupt practices. The outcome of the alleged illegal activity had the potential to jeopardize security at Newark/Liberty Airport."

http://www.njdcj.org/releases/2004/haynes0203.htm

 

[Cyrus]

Moonbear, as I stated earlier, all the security and rent-a-cops in the entire United States will not make one bit of difference. Their job is not that of the US Customs and Coast Guard. At best, they will watch over the facility. In addition, it is lax security as the foreign ports that will enable terrorists to smuggle WMD into our country, not our own ports (Unless they want to smuggle WMD out of our country).

 

[Integral]

Moonbear, as I stated earlier, all the security and rent-a-cops in the entire United States will not make one bit of difference. Their job is not that of the US Customs and Coast Guard. At best, they will watch over the facility. In addition, it is lax security as the foreign ports that will enable terrorists to smuggle WMD into our country, not our own ports (Unless they want to smuggle WMD out of our country).

Seems to me that we must have security at both ends. If we cannot contol what is loaded the least we must do is ensure that nothing hazardous can be unloaded. How do we do this? Not even a bit clear to me. I will admit that I now next to nothing about how the container system works. Can someone explain to me just what the seal on one of these things consists of?

 

[Moonbear]

Seems to me that we must have security at both ends. If we cannot contol what is loaded the least we must do is ensure that nothing hazardous can be unloaded. How do we do this? Not even a bit clear to me. I will admit that I now next to nothing about how the container system works. Can someone explain to me just what the seal on one of these things consists of?

Here's one type of seal.
http://www.marathonproducts.com/products_container.html

The idea is it is imprinted with a number that is recorded on the shipping documents, so if the number doesn't match or the seal is broken, you know the shipment has been tampered with.

While looking for a picture, I stumbled across this too...it seems a bill was introduced last year on sealing shipping containers (it seems to be a revision to prior legislation). I don't know if it was passed, or what the discussion was on it.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.163.IH:

Secure Domestic Container Partnership Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)
HR 163 IH

109th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 163

To amend title 46, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to carry out an empty shipping container sealing pilot program to encourage shipping container handlers to seal empty shipping containers after they have unpacked them, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 4, 2005

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security

A BILL

To amend title 46, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to carry out an empty shipping container sealing pilot program to encourage shipping container handlers to seal empty shipping containers after they have unpacked them, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

As far as I know, there are two main reasons to put a seal on a shipment. One is to provide a quick visual inspection for potential theft or other unauthorized removal of contents, and the other is after the contents have been inspected so that nothing can be added without evidence of tampering.

Ah, and here seems to be where this would be a vulnerability:

The TESC initiative is just one of many responses to guidelines from the Custom Trade-Partnership Against Terrorism (CT-PAT), a partnership between United States Customs and Border Protection, Homeland Security, and the trade community.

A voluntary consortium of companies, CT-PAT hopes to encourage the use of technology to secure cargo sent over land and sea by offering incentives to those importers who comply with CT-PAT guidelines.

Petrizzi said U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Robert Bonner is proposing to create a so-called "green lane" for shippers. "To qualify for green lane treatment you will need to do three things: be a CT-PAT member in good standing, ship only through designated secure ports, and use an approved container security device," said Petrizzi.

Those importers that do qualify will receive expedited processing through the U.S. ports.

Petrizzi pointed out that a two-day increase in holding inventory due to delay at the ports costs trading partners $50 billion to $80 billion annually.

CT-PAT is voluntary in order to encourage non-U.S. shippers to comply with U.S. security needs, added Petrizzi.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/01/11/HNge_1.html?INTRUSION%20DETECTION%20SYSTEM%20-%20IDS

It doesn't sound like such a system exists yet, but if that is allowed to proceed as well, then the easiest way to smuggle something would be to have an insider who allows a supposedly secure container pass through after it has been tampered with. And, it sounds like the current vulnerability is that it's possible to open containers without breaking the seal on them (from earlier in that article) by simply taking the door off the hinges.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Maybe it doesn't matter who's running the show.

Checks, and checks on the checkers etc are obviouly needed in any case. No one is beyond suspicion. But we don't need to stumble around like blind fools who can't even act in our own best interest. This should be US controlled from top to bottom and then every effort made to police the system. How this can not be obvious to anyone is completely beyond me.

 

[Cyrus]

Because, Ivan, the government is not allowed to run businesses. If it were to take over the port, it would effectively be taking over and competing in a commercial area with our tax dollars, and that is not the purpose of government.

 

[Moonbear]

The governors of two affected states are getting involved now too, and are looking into options including revoking the lease for running the ports.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Two Republican governors on Monday questioned a Bush administration decision allowing an Arab-owned company to operate six major U. S. ports, saying they may try to cancel lease arrangements at ports in their states.
New York Gov. George Pataki and Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich voiced doubts about the acquisition of a British company that has been running the U.S. ports by Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20060221/D8FTBR100.html

So, Cyrus, you say our own government shouldn't run our own ports, but it's okay with you if UAE government does?

 

[loseyourname]

So, Cyrus, you say our own government shouldn't run our own ports, but it's okay with you if UAE government does?

A state-owned company running the operations is not the same as the government running the operations. We actually do the same thing with many of our ports. Take the New York/New Jersey Port Authority, for instance. It is a state-run corporation whose leaders are appointed by the two state governments and which was initially set up with public tax dollars. However, the men who run it, as far as I know (I know this was at least the case during the Robert Moses era), do not take input from government officials, are not accountable to the public, and are otherwise autonomous. The structure is set up just like a private corporation and the authority is even self-funded through user fees (bridge, tunnel, and road tolls), which is what allows its operation to be autonomous rather than directed by politicians.*

I have no idea, but I would imagine that the company doing the acquisition is closer to this than an actual department of the UAE government. Does anyone here know for sure?

*Take this with somewhat of a grain of salt, as I'm sure I'm off on some small details. I'm not exactly an expert on public authorities. The important point is that they operate the same as private companies and make their own decisions free from government direction.

Edit: Also, just to note, if I'm wrong and this company is indeed state-owned and state-run and essentially a department of the UAE government, then I am not okay with them acquiring private property in the United States in any form (unless you count treasury bonds as private property). Outsourced socialism is no better than domestic socialism.

 

[crazycalhoun]

Maybe it doesn't matter who's running the show.

Because ICE will come down on you like a cold case a Cobra?

 

[crazycalhoun]

Integral already addressed this...the managers are the ones hiring the work crews and assigning shifts.

Not at the Port of NY. And I'd love to see some documentation on hiring and labor management at other ports.

Right now, there is no law that says they have to hire U.S. citizens, and I know that because that's what Congress is scrambling to do now, create such a law.

Congress isn't scrambling to do anything of the sort. Senate and House Democrats are.

For that matter, even with such a law, they could still overlook faked IDs.

Which are already illegal.

One of the people I spent Christmas with cannot get a passport right now because she was born in Hudson County, NJ, where there were so many fraudulently issued birth certificates (real birth certificates from the Hudson County Office of Vital Statistics, not ones someone forged on a computer somewhere) that they cannot be used as ID for obtaining a passport. That's one of the northern counties in NJ that includes Jersey City and is just across the river from Manhattan.

1. I know where New Jerusalem is.

2. Sounds like Jersey's stepping up their vigilence. Good for them.

 

[Moonbear]

Not at the Port of NY. And I'd love to see some documentation on hiring and labor management at other ports.

And I'd love to see some support for any of the claims you're making.

Congress isn't scrambling to do anything of the sort. Senate and House Democrats are.

And the difference is... Last I checked, Congress is composed of the Senate and House of Representatives. The point is, nobody would be scrambling to write such a bill if one already existed.

Which are already illegal.

And how does that contribute to the discussion?