Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jimthefiend
In response to your fucking book:
L.A. is a bad example, since it's NOT a port in question and everyone knows its a shithole as far as security.
I'll say it AGAIN, that company will NEVER be in charge of security at the ports.
If you wanna blame someone then blame our customs people that we have INSPECTING CARGO abroad, BEFORE it even gets on the ship bound for our soil; or the people doing the security once the ship does arrive.
i.e. The Coast Guard or DHS.
|
you said
"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."
I was giving an example that security is not all that you may think it is. Yes LA is not one of the ports that is in question here but you made a blanket statement that security in our navel ports is too tight for anything to get through and I was simply pointing out that that is an untrue statement.
I do blame the custome, and the coast guard and DHS I also blame the politicians and leaders for not helping these guys make security what it needs to be. I know that this country will not be in charge of security but I still think allowing a country that until only a few years ago did business with a known terrorist government (the taliban) to run several of our ports is just not a great idea. Maybe they have a perfect record maybe there will never be a problem with any of those ports but should we be willing to take even the slightest chance?