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

[TheStatutoryApe]

Regarding what could happen if the company tries to close down the ports...
I'm not sure if it would cover it or not but there are provisions in the Taft-Hartley Act that allowed Bush to put a stop to the Long Shoremen strike just recently.

Although the Act also authorized the President to intervene in strikes or potential strikes that create a national emergency, a reaction to the national coal miners' strikes called by the United Mine Workers of America in the 1940s, the President has used that power less and less frequently in each succeeding decade. President Clinton famously used the law to quash a strike by American Airlines pilots when the strike was only a few minutes old on February 17, 1997.[1] President George W. Bush invoked the law most recently in connection with the employer lockout of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union during negotiations with West Coast shipping and stevedoring companies in 2002.

This is specific to union strikes though so like I said I'm not sure if it would apply. It does how ever give me the impression that there is something somewhere that would help with this.

Aha... here are a couple ones that are probably closer to the mark...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Emergency_Economic_Powers_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trading_with_the_Enemy_Act

 

[edward]

It doesn't sound like a done-deal yet to me. Have I missed something? At what stage of the process did they find out and how did they find out?

There is always a clause in any contract that allows for a sale to be voided contingent on specific happenings. Thats why Chertoff and Condi Rice are in full spin control mode.

Edit: You added more to your post after I quoted, but you're citing the same article I did. I don't see anything there that clarifies when Congress was told, just that King learned about it from "senior White House officials." So, someone in the White House informed Congress.

I am curious about that myself. It appears that differen't members of congress got the word in differen't ways, but they all happened after the Administration had approved the deal as far as I have read in the various links.

From the description of the take-over, it sounds like a typical corporate merger...this isn't a new company replacing a previous company, this is a new company that took over the previous company.

It is not a merger, the UAE state owned company is buying out the british company for $6.8 billion. They will assume any contracts or leases of the British company. For instance the Brits have/had a thirty year lease on the operation of the Port of New York. There are different financial contractson other ports that will be assumed by the UAE.

Do we have any right to meddle in the British company's business deals to block such a corporate take-over?

We certainly do if national security is at issue. Plus any foreign acquisition of American assets must be approve by that mysterious, "special committee."

The more I'm reading, the more complicated it's sounding. Since the British company already was running operations, and the UAE company took over the British company, it's really not quite the same situation as a UAE company coming in and out-bidding the British company. The British company doesn't exist as a British company anymore, so it's possible we were simply stuck with the choice of letting the UAE company take over or have nobody running the show and close our ports. What a sticky situation! It seems more reason to get some sort of back-up plan in place.

We weren't stuck with anything, the federal government has the final say on this. I do think a back-up plan would be a good idea if this deal is not overturned by congress. The UAE isn't located in a very stable area of the world.

I wonder how long the contract is with the UAE company? Since it sounds like it wasn't really a choice or decision to bring them in, but that they just took over the British company already operating the ports, I wonder if a new contract term was negotiated, or if they just complete the period of the prior contract...whatever that would be.

The UAE will be assuming whatever contracts that the Brits had with the 6 individual ports.

 

[Moonbear]

Regarding what could happen if the company tries to close down the ports...
I'm not sure if it would cover it or not but there are provisions in the Taft-Hartley Act that allowed Bush to put a stop to the Long Shoremen strike just recently.

This is specific to union strikes though so like I said I'm not sure if it would apply. It does how ever give me the impression that there is something somewhere that would help with this.

Aha... here are a couple ones that are probably closer to the mark...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Emergency_Economic_Powers_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trading_with_the_Enemy_Act

Thank you for helping clear that up. Those don't sound like they would exactly cover the issue, though the Taft-Hartley act at least addresses the problem of a strike with a single company running multiple ports. And it's good to see that it could be evoked quickly too.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Thank you for helping clear that up. Those don't sound like they would exactly cover the issue, though the Taft-Hartley act at least addresses the problem of a strike with a single company running multiple ports. And it's good to see that it could be evoked quickly too.

The IEEPA authorizes the president to declare the existence of an "unusual and extraordinary threat... to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States" that originates "in whole or substantial part outside the United States." It further authorizes the president, after such a declaration, to block transactions and freeze assets to deal with the threat. In the event of an actual attack on the United States, the president can also confiscate property connected with a country, group, or person that aided in the attack.

I could be wrong but it looks like it should fall under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Shutting down the port operations would easily be a national economic emergency and most likely declared an act of economic sabotage especially coming from a company owned by a foreign state.
One way or another there seems to be protection and it looks pretty much like the exact sort of thing Cyrus described if the IEEPA applies.

 

[loseyourname]

Please don't pull the race card here. This isn't about race and you know it.
We are currently fighting a war on terrorism againts Islam, not a race.
Thousnds of Americans were killed on 9/11 and thousands more have been killed since then. Hint: they were not killed by Catholics or Hindus.

Whether it's race or religion, you can't refuse to hire someone or sell to them because of it. That's not fair; it's just guilt by association when you have no evidence or reason to believe, other than innuendo, that this company has ever been or ever will be involved in terrorist plots or any other effort to hurt US security. Just saying that Al Qaeda once used other companies that were based in the same country to transfer money and that citizens of that country were involved in attacks is not enough. US citizens and companies have been involved in activities that threatened US national security before; that doesn't mean all US companies should now be barred from acquiring any operations that represent potential targets.

I'd just like to see some reason that we should be concerned about this company, rather than simply grouping them in with the entire UAE or all Muslims (are the owners of the company even religious fundamentalists?) and saying they're guilty for no reason other than because of belonging to the same nation or religion.

 

[Moonbear]

I could be wrong but it looks like it should fall under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Shutting down the port operations would easily be a national economic emergency and most likely declared an act of economic sabotage especially coming from a company owned by a foreign state.
One way or another there seems to be protection and it looks pretty much like the exact sort of thing Cyrus described if the IEEPA applies.

The only thing I wasn't sure about is since the act talks about property in a foreign country, would it apply to our own ports?

 

[Moonbear]

I'd just like to see some reason that we should be concerned about this company, rather than simply grouping them in with the entire UAE or all Muslims (are the owners of the company even religious fundamentalists?) and saying they're guilty for no reason other than because of belonging to the same nation or religion.

One of the earlier articles cited says that this company is state-owned, which is the reason given why the Miami company is fighting it, because it puts them in business with the UAE government.

 

[edward]

The UAE was very much aware of terrorist funding and activities in their country previous to and after 911. We had warned them in 1999 to put a stop to it. They didn't. The information is on pages 40-43 of the 9/11 commission report depending on your version of adobe reader.
Shortcut to: http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrFin_Monograph.pdf

 

[edward]

Whether it's race or religion, you can't refuse to hire someone or sell to them because of it. That's not fair; it's just guilt by association when you have no evidence or reason to believe, other than innuendo, that this company has ever been or ever will be involved in terrorist plots or any other effort to hurt US security. Just saying that Al Qaeda once used other companies that were based in the same country to transfer money and that citizens of that country were involved in attacks is not enough.

The world isn't fair. And I didn't just say that they were guilty by association. They were just plain guilty. The UAE knew what was going on in their country and failed to do anything about it even though we had warned them in 1999.

US citizens and companies have been involved in activities that threatened US national security before; that doesn't mean all US companies should now be barred from acquiring any operations that represent potential targets.

You are putting oranges and apples in the same box again.

I'd just like to see some reason that we should be concerned about this company, rather than simply grouping them in with the entire UAE or all Muslims (are the owners of the company even religious fundamentalists?) and saying they're guilty for no reason other than because of belonging to the same nation or religion.

It is a state owned company and their religion is fundamentalist Islam. What do you need, dead bodies? we already have them.

 

[Cyrus]

It is a state owned company and their religion is fundamentalist Islam. What do you need, dead bodies? we already have them.

Edward, it saddens me to hear you say this. I thought you would have a better judgement than that. Do you think the head of the Department of Homeland Security, Department of State, and the President of the United States would call the UAE their 'good friends' and approve of this bid if they though the UAE was in any way a " state owned company and their religion is fundamentalist Islam."

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The only thing I wasn't sure about is since the act talks about property in a foreign country, would it apply to our own ports?

The part where it mentions "in whole or substantial part outside the United States" I am assuming would cover an entity in the US working on behalf of a foreign government. I don't think that they are referring to property in a foreign country though since the president has no authority to freeze assets or confiscate property in another country. Something like that would require diplomatic excersizes to convince the country where the property is held and/or clandestine CIA operations. I'm pretty sure it's referring to property and assets located in the US.

 

[edward]

Edward, it saddens me to hear you say this. I thought you would have a better judgement than that. Do you think the head of the Department of Homeland Security, Department of State, and the President of the United States would call the UAE their 'good friends' and approve of this bid if they though the UAE was in any way a " state owned company and their religion is fundamentalist Islam."

Cyrus, sorry I saddend you. My judgement relies heavily on a liftime of experience.

I would really like to know what the presidents motivations are. Perhaps if he would just tell us it might clear up a lot of doubts that people are having. Chertoff and Condi Rice will say what the administration tells them to say.

Somewhere behind all of this move to be buddies with the UAE, someone has some very questionable alterior motives.

When I say state owned company I mean that DB Ports, the company in question, is an entirely owned entity of the UAE government. As of five years ago the UAE was not at all helpful according to the 9/11 Comission Report. They are not a democracy and the are very much Islamic. And every Islamic country has a fundamentalist faction.

If this is about: oil, the petro dollar, giving the UAE a place to invest their money, and having an area in the middle east to stockpile weapons, why can't we just call a spade a spade and dispense with all of the secretive garbage.

 

[SOS2008]

We are concerned about lack of control of strategic areas, such as the Middle East and oil resources we are dependent upon. We are concerned about outsourcing and/or importing to meet our country's needs (or at least we should be). We are concerned about foreign ownership of U.S. assets. We are concerned about national security, which includes insuring basic necessities for the American people. If we as Americans aren't capable of operating our own ports, we should be asking why not? The same goes with everything in the business sector if for no other reason than keeping revenue, jobs, etc. here. There must be something in it for BushCo.

 

[russ_watters]

He who operates controlls the security.

No. That is not correct. Primary responsibility for security is in the hands of the US Coast Guard and DHS. And that includes oversight of the physical security of the facility itself - not just the water. [edit-clarify] The company operating the port may hire the rent-a-cops, but their security plan is still overseen by the coast guard and DHS.

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/mp/mtsa.shtml

But let's keep our eye on the ball here: What is the primary issue with port security? The primary issue with port security is not the physical security of the port facilities, but the inspection/clearance of the ships and cargo that come into the ports. Responsibility for that is in the hands of the Coast Guard and DHS (the customs part was taken over by DHS).
http://www.senate.gov/~govt-aff/032003ohanlon.htm

The Coast Guard is highly relevant to the topic at hand because it is responsible for verifying the origin and characteristics of ships coming into the United States, and it has the job of stopping ships that do not belong here. The second asks how much larger traditional customs inspections resources (now part of DHS’s directorate of border and transportation security, as you well know) should be. They must now screen cargo coming into the United States well enough to deter dangerous shipments, and failing that to detect the presence of nuclear materials, surface-to-air antiaircraft weapons, substantial quantities of chemical weapons, and other potential terrorist weapons.

 

[crazycalhoun]

We are concerned about lack of control of strategic areas, such as the Middle East and oil resources we are dependent upon. We are concerned about outsourcing and/or importing to meet our country's needs (or at least we should be). We are concerned about foreign ownership of U.S. assets. We are concerned about national security, which includes insuring basic necessities for the American people. If we as Americans aren't capable of operating our own ports, we should be asking why not? The same goes with everything in the business sector if for no other reason than keeping revenue, jobs, etc. here. There must be something in it for BushCo.

The short and long of it...a port is not an embassy.

 

[Moonbear]

If this is about: oil, the petro dollar, giving the UAE a place to invest their money, and having an area in the middle east to stockpile weapons, why can't we just call a spade a spade and dispense with all of the secretive garbage.

There are some obvious types of reasons that come to mind, but I can't understand why none of them could be voiced outright instead of being done secretly, such as financial incentive to the UAE to stay allied with the U.S., a reduction of the cost of oil to the US (unless Bush's oil buddies were planning on keeping that information to themselves and still charging the consumer just as much), some sort of agreement so the US can maintain operations at their military bases in the UAE, or maybe even just a showing of good will/forgiveness to push diplomatic relations with the UAE forward rather than risk them deteriorating.

One semi-legitimate reason I can think of to have kept it secret and only "let it leak" late in the game, is if they really didn't have any intention of allowing this, but went through all the motions to keep the UAE happy, then let it leak out knowing it would cause an uproar, then when private companies sued to block it and Congress rushed to pass laws to change the rules, oops, sorry, I guess we tried our best, but just can't finalize that deal. But, geez, that would be awfully transparent as a diplomatic tactic.

This could be a very nice example of real politics hard at work, if only we knew more of the details. Afterall, national security is not just about who is running the ports, but ensuring we have fuel for our vehicles, and trying to appease governments in unstable areas to keep as many of them as allies as possible, and keeping them happy enough to continue permitting the US to operate military bases in their countries.

 

[crazycalhoun]

There are some obvious types of reasons that come to mind, but I can't understand why none of them could be voiced outright instead of being done secretly...

Probably because it wasn't done secretly.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, this is what I'm struggling to understand, and would appreciate if you could elaborate here. What exactly does "operation" of the ports entail? I know they don't own them, but operation gives them some control over something...

In addition to what Art said about loading and unloading cargo, physical site security (they hire the rent-a-cops that work the gate), I would assume that also means they own or lease the land itself and the buildings. Also, there is maintenance, fuel, provisions, tugboat service to assist in docking, etc. It isn't fundamentally different from the way some railroads are privately owned (except, of course, that even the private railroads have considerable government involvement since they are unprofitable on their own).

Also of note, the harbor pilots (local navigation experts, required by law to be used when entering or leaving port) are also private contractors, though they are separate from the port operations.

Regarding the secrecy thing: the Bush Admin has a culture of secrecy. I doubt there is any specific reason for most of the things they do in secret - it just the way they do business.

 

[russ_watters]

We are concerned about lack of control of strategic areas, such as the Middle East and oil resources we are dependent upon. We are concerned about outsourcing and/or importing to meet our country's needs (or at least we should be). We are concerned about foreign ownership of U.S. assets. We are concerned about national security, which includes insuring basic necessities for the American people. If we as Americans aren't capable of operating our own ports, we should be asking why not? The same goes with everything in the business sector if for no other reason than keeping revenue, jobs, etc. here. There must be something in it for BushCo.

All of that is fine, but it doesn't have anything at all to do with the OP. General port/shipping security is certainly an important issue, but this discussion is about the sale of a British corporation that currently runs our ports to a company based in the UAE. Unless you actually think the company is going to be infiltrated by terrorists because it is an Arabic company or will lower their security standards (despite all the government oversight), the net effect of this change on our security should be zero.

 

[russ_watters]

Explain where you need that money to get it operating again? You already have US workers working there. They are already trained to do their jobs. The structure is already there, and you have the old British company that is familiar with the running of operations to take over if they had to sell it back. Yeah, the people that lost the bids to the UAE would buy it within the hour, not overnight, your right my bad.

I rather suspect that when the sale goes through, the only immediate change will be the sign on the street in front of the port operaitons office. They will probably reorganize the management later (just like with any corporate sale), but very little will change immediatly about the day-to-day operations and certainly there will be no disruption.

 

[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)[/color] 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.