POL - Our ports under UAE control?

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

/cough Bullshit /cough

That is precisely what the opposition to this is about. This is the sand nigger thread isn't it?

"". As one of the SN's (well I'm Indian, but its not like you lot can tell the difference. ), this is exactly what this deal is about.

[Flasch186]

i guess Im more offended by that terminology than most people are. okay, Ill reorganize the use of that word in my brain but man do I hate that, and most racial slurs....perhaps im oversensitive being jewish, I dunno.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Hey I call 'em like I see 'em. In my opinion that is exactly what those who opposed that deal were essentially saying. I'm just bringing it to their attention.

In my opinion everyone in favor of the deal wants terrorists to blow up America. I just call 'em like I see 'em.

[duckman]

I love how bases his knowledge on a subject by a couple of news articles he read. Flasch, there's these things called 'books.' You should trying reading one of them for a change. I bet you might even find one on port security and how the Coast Guard conducts it.

[Flasch186]

Im wondering if we shouldnt be on eachother's ignore lists since all you do is troll about in the USS Flasch186. Instead of debate you attack and attack and attack, I wouldve thought it would get old. Try to stay on point from now on thanks...

In reference to the attack above, I would say that I continue to read and absorb information long after Ive formed an opinion on a topic...Im able to flip flop based on new info, whether right or wrong. I dont see you ever giving yourself the opportunity to do the same, if its a lefty seeming article, "you cant trust it" and if it supports your opinion which coincidentally is usually the opposite of mine (the person who you just so coincidentally hate [but that has nothing to do with politics - coincidentally]) than we aren't listening/reading it right. convenient it all seems, from top to bottom...

So you are saying that the Coast Guard DOESN'T forewarn boats it is going to board for safety inspections? So what I said about the statistics is untrue? It doesnt make sense?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The article states that all ships that are boarded for security inspections are "surprise inspections". So from what the article says, it seems the former employee who is hoping for "whistle-blowing" status is talking about advanced notice for safety-inspections?

No, that's not how I read it:

Originally Posted by article

The decision on whether to notify a vessel and under what circumstances is left up to the port captain, and varies from port to port, Thorne said.

A Coast Guard spokesman in New York said all vessels boarded for security reasons there undergo surprise inspections, according to The New York Times.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

No, that's not how I read it:

Where did you read that security inspections were tipped in advance?

That's the problem I'm having with the article. It talks about both safety and security inspections. It clearly cites that safety inspections are mentioned in advanced. Then the only reference to security inspections, it says they are not tipped in advance. Then it says that inspections should not be tipped in advance, but doesn't reference security in particular. That's confusing. Because I agree that security inspections should not be tipped in advance, that defeats the purpose. But I'm not so sure that port traffic should come to a complete stop for an unprepared/surprised crew when it comes to a routine safety inspection. So with what limited knowledge I have of safety inspections, I don't think I would mind that they are tipped two days in advance to keep traffic moving. Once you get past the very clear suggestive headline, it really becomes quite unclear. Wouldn't you agree?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Where did you read that security inspections were tipped in advance?

The crucial paragraph is, I believe, this one:

Originally Posted by article

Those safety reasons include cross-checking crew and cargo lists with those with the port, as well as allowing dogs to sniff for bombs and to check for radiation, officials told The New York Times. The searches can last between 30 minutes and 12 hours, the paper reported.

Which is, I'll agree, very confusing. The bolded part is obviously a security check, not a safety check, which means one of two things:

1. Security and safety checks can be, and are, rolled together, and thus a ship given advance notice of a safety check is also being given advance notice of a security check.

2. They're not, but the journalist is conflating the two because they are either a) lazy or b) pushing a particular viewpoint.

Originally Posted by Dutch

That's the problem I'm having with the article. It talks about both safety and security inspections. It clearly cites that safety inspections are mentioned in advanced. Then the only reference to security inspections, it says they are not tipped in advance. Then it says that inspections should not be tipped in advance, but doesn't reference security in particular. That's confusing. Because I agree that security inspections should not be tipped in advance, that defeats the purpose. But I'm not so sure that port traffic should come to a complete stop for an unprepared/surprised crew when it comes to a routine safety inspection. So with what limited knowledge I have of safety inspections, I don't think I would mind that they are tipped two days in advance to keep traffic moving. Once you get past the very clear suggestive headline, it really becomes quite unclear. Wouldn't you agree?

Yes, absolutely.

However, it's probably a moot point since so few ships are inspected anyway. In my opinion, only when we can get to the point when a significant proportion of ships are inspected should we start worrying about the processes used to inspect them.

[Dutch]

I guess this particular journalist didn't need to have a strong understanding of "writing clearly" in order to get his degree in journalism. Hopefully there will be a follow-up article sometime so we can get a better understanding of what all these different people are saying.

As for your last point. We are racing to get there. But technology is not up to speed. It may be 5, 10, or maybe even 20 years before we can even remotely be confident of cargo inspections that don't bring our import business to it's knees.

[flere-imsaho]

I disagree. Where there's a will, there's a way. If terrorism is indeed the greatest threat we face, then surely no challenge should be too great to ensure our security?

Perhaps instead of sending 6,000 National Guard troops to the Mexican border (to stop the Mexicans from crossing the border with dirty bombs? ), send them to the ports, and give them all Geiger counters.

Seriously, though, I don't think the problem is necessarily one of technology, but one of attention. It has already been said that perhaps the biggest reason so few ships are inspected is that the manpower to do so is simply not there. So, hire more people, right? After all, this was what was done with the TSA. Can not the same principle be applied to port security?

Then, move on to technology. What we have here is a process challenge, first-and-foremost. However, we're talking about an industry that already deals with, and has largely solved, massive transportation/transhipment challenges. They have already overlaid process upon process, to create an efficient supply chain, both in response to market forces, client demands, and government regulations. Surely the shipping industry, working in concert with the government, can devise an effective, and efficient inspection regime?

This all can be done. The only thing it lack is the political will to do so. The political will to take money from X and apply it to this Y. And we know our politicians would rather spend their time making English the national language and other such BS.

[st.cronin]

Question: How many terrorist actions have resulted from inadequate port security so far?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Question: How many terrorist actions have resulted from inadequate port security so far?

Go back in time, and ask how many terrorist attacks have involved hijacking a plane, and then crashing it into a building full of people.

It is an unfair question, but my point is that we can't wait until it happens to take the problem seriously.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Go back in time, and ask how many terrorist attacks have involved hijacking a plane, and then crashing it into a building full of people.

It is an unfair question, but my point is that we can't wait until it happens to take the problem seriously.

I agree, I just don't know how we can say that it is currently inadequate.

[ISiddiqui]

Oh I dunno... 5% of containers being checked and various commissions saying it is inadequate .

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Go back in time, and ask how many terrorist attacks have involved hijacking a plane, and then crashing it into a building full of people.

It is an unfair question, but my point is that we can't wait until it happens to take the problem seriously.

great point, and to Cronin's I would say that a simple statistical analysis of the numbers would lead people from both sides of the aisle to agree that we, as a country, would certainly say that a <5% "scan rate" would be inadequate for the day and age we're in.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Oh I dunno... 5% of containers being checked and various commissions saying it is inadequate .

What does the Coast Guard say? And what are the political biases of the various commisions? I mean, I don't neccesarily disagree that things need change, I'm just saying that I have heard people with important sounding titles say things like "our school systems are completely inadequate" and "our military is completely outdated" and other things which defy common sense. So, just because this idea (that port security is inadequate) correlates with common sense, doesn't mean I'm totally prepared to swallow it. I agree that it is important; but I'm not convinced it's inadequate.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

What does the Coast Guard say? And what are the political biases of the various commisions? I mean, I don't neccesarily disagree that things need change, I'm just saying that I have heard people with important sounding titles say things like "our school systems are completely inadequate" and "our military is completely outdated" and other things which defy common sense. So, just because this idea (that port security is inadequate) correlates with common sense, doesn't mean I'm totally prepared to swallow it. I agree that it is important; but I'm not convinced it's inadequate.

Certainly on it's face, it is inadequate. I don't think there can really be much debate about that. I'm not sure it is as bad as it appears, but then again less than 5% appears to be pretty darn bad. Now that might be mitigated somewhat, if say that small percentage were targetted for inspection based on triggering some set of criteria. I don't know how the system works, but there doesn't seem to be a shortage of people claiming it is woefully lacking. Combine that with very few, if any voices saying that we're doing an adequate job.

[Dutch]

I'm not sure it is as bad as it appears, but then again less than 5% appears to be pretty darn bad. Now that might be mitigated somewhat, if say that small percentage were targetted for inspection based on triggering some set of criteria.

I know Navy task force interdiction missions in the Med have a reason to board a ship for search. There is no randomness about it. And the total ammount of ships that are stopped and search is probably insignificant, but reasonably precise. That is a bit different than port security, but there is probably a good bit of information on ships coming and going. And I can probably guarantee that if any of them have a "?" on them, that they will be stopped.

The problem that I can see with that is obviously that you can't stop and search what you aren't aware of. But you have to be smart. You can't just freak out and shut down shipping to search every last ship from front to back (fore to aft, or whatever in Navy terms). If we ever did that, the terrorists wouldn't even have to do anything to see us suffer.

International terrorism is very well orchestrated when left to it's own devices. It's primary mission is to hit us (the "west") where we are weak. If our port security is weak, they will keep that option open. If we spend a billion dollars a year to protect our ports and they still want to hit us, they'll find a way. Provided they ever get back to the level of effectiveness they were at on 9/11, that is. That's one of the reasons I fully support our aggressive/offensive approach to fighting terrorists "over there". It's simply more effective than trying to predict what they will do and defend against it.