Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jimthefiend
Take your own advice, and don't be stupid. That shipping company has a PERFECT track record with us. They were the FIRST to manually search EVERY outgoing container from the ports they run.
If someone DOES get a dirty bomb into this country, the odds of it coming through a naval port are roughly that of Paris Hilton being elected to the Senate. The security we have in place in our ports is just to tight and too sophisticated. What you SHOULD be worrying about is a bomb coming ashore off a drug smuggling boat, or accross the Mexican or Canadian border.
It is categorically NOT a security issue, it is a political one.
You fucking idiots who decry this administrations lack of concern about security crack me the fuck up.
Why weren't you crying like bitches when Clinton was closing bases, cutting budgets of vital agencies like the CIA or NSA, and saying "nah" to killing Bin Laden when we had several oppurtunities to do so?
Grow the fuck up.
Congress has NO authority to act on this, so skate it off.
|
I hate to break it to you on this one but you are wrong. At least about the security of the ports part. Here is why:
Not too long ago the TV show 20/20 did an experiment. they went to Malaysia and put a "sumulated dirty bomb" in an antique chest and shipped it to Los Angeles. The port they chose was in a city that is known for it's pro-terrorist politics and is a known haven for various terrorists. The "bomb" was a good size thing that looked like a bomb and had some old radioactive material in it. It wasn't enough material to do any harm but it was enough that it would set off scanners and get someone's attention.
the ship docked in Los Angeles the crate was unload on the docks and the chest was put into a truck shipped across the country. nobody looked in it, nobody caught it. They then take the tape and all the info to the FBI who, understandably, shit their pants. They were less then happy with 20/20 and the show recieved many letter from various people in charge saying that things were changing and would be getting much better and tighter.
Exactly one year later to the day they did the exact same thing. And they got the exact same results. So to say that our security is too tight for anything to get through is just incorrect.
Now as for the UAE taking over operational control of these ports. Here is why it should not be allowed to stand.
1. Before 9/11 the UAE was both a physical and financial location/training area that some of the 9/11 terrorists used.
2. After 9/11 the UAE and it's finacial insitutions refused to help us track and shut down terrorist bank accounts that may be within their country.
3. Until 9/11 the UAE acknowledged and did business with the Taliban government in Afghanistan.
So you have to ask yourself a question. Was their sudden turn and now strong stance against terrorism something that they really belive, or is it that taking that position and allowing us to build more military bases in their country and working with us is just a good business decission? We can't be sure one way or the other.
Take into consideration this: A guy works for this company that now controls the scheduling and opperation of several of our ports. His family is back in the UAE and a nice little terrorist comes along and tells him in no simple terms that if he doesn't do what they want, they will kill his family. All he has to do is switch a few things around in the schedule and make it easier for a certian crate to bypass any possible inspection. It won't seem like he is doing anything odd, just a normal switch. And that crate has either people in it or a bomb or something to make a bomb. the guy wants to save his family so he does it.
Given my choice I would say it will be more easy to potentially influence a guy who is working in Miami and who's family is living in the UAE than it would be to influence a guy working in Miami who's family is living in either London or a suburb of Miami.
Just my 2cents.