Port Security

[cameron]

fightingfalcon said:

Cameron - the Counter Terrorist blog pretty much backed up everything that I have said here.

I wonder why you posted it? Are you agreeing with me or no?

I will be honest with you FF my first reaction was not only no but hell no. The post I linked you to was not against the deal. Most of those I trust on matters of national security seem to be saying it isn't a security risk. To include our own Lorspi

[CommonSense]

"Most of those I trust on matters of national security seem to be saying it isn't a security risk."

Exactly. I just finished watching an interview with the head of security at one of the ports. He said there is no problem with the deal regarding security.

Problem is the average guy on the street hears "Arab" and his reasoning stops there.

[CommonSense]

I also had to vote "No".

[MARIO]

commonsense said:

"Most of those I trust on matters of national security seem to be saying it isn't a security risk."

Exactly. I just finished watching an interview with the head of security at one of the ports. He said there is no problem with the deal regarding security.

Problem is the average guy on the street hears "Arab" and his reasoning stops there.

Right. And Bush is actually being principled on this issue. But he and the Republicans are going to take a real beating in the court of public opinion on this one. People just repeat and believe whatever they hear, without taking it upon themselves to acquire the facts of this story.

I get tired of all this stupidity.

[101ABN]

I can't vote on this one.

Under what authority would we search foreign vessels in foreign ports?

It's an issue of national sovereignty.

We'd consider it an act of war if it were done to us.

[CommonSense]

It angers me when Dems and Republicans use something like this for political gain. They know there is no risk over this deal and they are willing to hurt our relationship with an ally for their November happiness.

Bill Frist has disgusted me with his political betrayal of Bush on this issue.

[MARIO]

commonsense said:

It angers me when Dems and Republicans use something like this for political gain. They know there is no risk over this deal and they are willing to hurt our relationship with an ally for their November happiness.

Bill Frist has disgusted me with his political betrayal of Bush on this issue.

Frist is on his way out, so I would say this is the time for him to take a principled stand.

But Republican Congressmen are really getting heat from constituents on this issue. So can one really blame them? They are after all just looking out for their political careers.

It just seems like such a non-issue to me. It's no wonder we have so few allies in the world. This is how we treat them.

[CommonSense]

I suppose you can't blame some allies for getting upset when we can act so schizophrenic sometimes.

[AmericanPride]

admin said:

I can't vote on this one.

Under what authority would we search foreign vessels in foreign ports?

It's an issue of national sovereignty.

We'd consider it an act of war if it were done to us.

101-
We'd search them by mutual agreement. They don't submit to our inspections, said country doesn't have access to our markets.

We can also establish tougher conditions for shipping to US ports, such as having departed from a "certified" port (a port subject to US security measures) to pressure other countries into accepting our requests. We can simply refuse the shipping that has failed to pass through one of these selected ports. This would funnel US-bound shipping into clear and controllable lanes upon which we can exercise the proper security efforts.

[FightingFalcon]

americanpride2 said:

101-
We'd search them by mutual agreement. They don't submit to our inspections, said country doesn't have access to our markets.

We can also establish tougher conditions for shipping to US ports, such as having departed from a "certified" port (a port subject to US security measures) to pressure other countries into accepting our requests. We can simply refuse the shipping that has failed to pass through one of these selected ports. This would funnel US-bound shipping into clear and controllable lanes upon which we can exercise the proper security efforts.

Unfortunately for you, Protectionism went out of fashion with the Great Depression.

Any attempt to protect US goods though methods like the ones above would be met with hostility by the WTO and the rest of the world. You would initiate a trade war with the entire world, which because of our incredible trade deficit, is not a war that we cannot win.

[LorSpi]

admin said:

I can't vote on this one.

Under what authority would we search foreign vessels in foreign ports?

It's an issue of national sovereignty.

We'd consider it an act of war if it were done to us.

The US certifies a port as being secured or not. I watch this being set up in Peru. Our folks inspect these ports and their operations. Same for airports. It is a pretty impressive program as a matter of fact. Worth investigating if you have any interest at all.

The US presence overseas is extensive. And we call whether we like the security at an airport - and now seaport. We given them our standards and that country must meet it to ship to our ports.

These are the programs that operate under the radar as far as the media and public knowledge goes. We do not fund our overseas presence enough IMHO. Certainly not for the sheer importance of work being done for US security.

[AmericanPride]

fightingfalcon said:

americanpride2 said:

101-
We'd search them by mutual agreement. They don't submit to our inspections, said country doesn't have access to our markets.

We can also establish tougher conditions for shipping to US ports, such as having departed from a "certified" port (a port subject to US security measures) to pressure other countries into accepting our requests. We can simply refuse the shipping that has failed to pass through one of these selected ports. This would funnel US-bound shipping into clear and controllable lanes upon which we can exercise the proper security efforts.

Unfortunately for you, Protectionism went out of fashion with the Great Depression.

I'm not talking about economics James....

[LorSpi]

fightingfalcon said:

[
Unfortunately for you, Protectionism went out of fashion with the Great Depression.

Any attempt to protect US goods though methods like the ones above would be met with hostility by the WTO and the rest of the world. You would initiate a trade war with the entire world, which because of our incredible trade deficit, is not a war that we cannot win.

The WTO does not deal with security issues. They handle trade issues only. Just as US standards define the security at international airports.

It's already in place - as of 2004. Here's a brief sample on the topic:

www.house.gov/transportation/cgmt/06-09-04/06-09-04memo.html

www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/DHSPortSecurityFactSheet-062104.pdf

www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/press_release/press_release_0541.xml

www.imo.org/About/mainframe.asp?topic_id=583&doc_id=2689

[dustdevil28]

americanpride2 said:

If a ship is intended to function as a delivery platform for an explosive device, searching the vessel in an American port does not prevent the adversary from fulfilling his task of penetrating American security and entering an American port. Indeed, the only safe point is in the port of departure, whether its in Japan, Saudi Arabia, or France. It would then prove most productive to submit vessels destined for America to searches in these locations.

I fail to see how we could be allowed to search vessals in a foreign port.

For incoming vessals the Coast Guard already does searches on random and suspected vessals miles from shore.

[Sailor]

I've seen the idea floated several times to inspect incoming merchant ships at sea. This photo is of a TYPICAL containership.

Several dozen of these ships call in US ports every week. Each of the containers you see is the "box" from a 40 or 50 foot long highway trailer and some of these ships carry more than 5000.



If she had to be searched at sea, how long do you think it would take and how many people?

Daunting, isn't it?