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

[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.