What Do Port Operators Do?
Fred Barnes writes:
This isn't true. Security would remain in the hands of the U.S. Coast Guard and Customs Service. And the personnel operating the ports would be the same. Only the company owning the terminals would change.This a widespread notion, but is it true? If you've ever been to a port it doesn't seem to be crawling with Coast Guard personnel, they're out in the harbor somewhere. There are some Customs folks about and sometimes a special port police departments, but as with any other sizeable business in America the ports I've seen appear to employ a lot of security guards to do security. Consider a bank. The FBI, I believe, is responsible for catching bank robbers. The Secret Service handles counterfeiting. If I point a gun at a bank teller, grab some cash, then run out onto the street, the local police will chase me. Law enforcement professionals, in other words, are in charge of enforcing the laws against robbing banks. But there's an important sense in which (duh) banks are responsible for bank security. They have cameras and guards and locks and procedures and all the rest.
At any rate, via Mark Kleiman, this post on Transparent Grid appears to establish that port operators do, in fact, have significant responsibilities in the field of port security. In addition, insofar as port security is managed by Customs or the Coast Guard, one would expect the port operator to have a lot of knowledge about the relevant procedures since otherwise it's hard to see how the system could work. Besides the Customs people themselves, who's going to know better how you might evade Customs at such-and-such terminal in Baltimore than the guys who operate the terminal?
Advertisement
Comments (10)
It doesn't take a Svengali to evade port security when only about 5% of shipping containers are subjected even to cursory infrared scanning. But, if the Coast Guard wants to inspect 100% of shipping containers, they should go for it, on the taxpayers' dime. Actually it would be far more sensible if our country spent its extra cash rebuilding New Orleans or some other good deed. However, helped by a bipartisan consensus, it looks paranoid budgeting decisions may win out.
From the standpoint of basic morality, though, most important is that Big Dems have joined their Big Repub comrades in exploiting anti-Arab paranoia, and made the US a more threatening place for Arab-Americans to be. So, my question is, when do we put our Arab-American citizens in internment camps? After all, who knows America's vulnerabilities better than the Arabs who are citizens of our once great land?
February 27, 2006 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't lecture us on "basic morality" when your own duplicity is so flagrant, fairleft.
I get real tired of the Administration "anti-Arab" talking point. I frankly don't care if you took each and every person in the UAE, from the emirs on down, and replaced them with generic Swedes. They still were involved in a lot of unsavory matters, from laundering terrorists' money to transshipping nuclear materials, not to mention playing footsie with bin Laden. It's the Administration who is construing criticism of bad guys who happen to be Arabs as anti-Arab bigotry. They (and you) are the ones blurring the lines.
February 27, 2006 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's really incredibly stupid. The reason that putting Japanese-Americans in interment camps during World War II was bad was that the internees were Japanese-Americans, not that America faced no threat from the nation of Japan. If we had given the port contracts to Casey Kasem and Jamie Farr, no one would care.
February 27, 2006 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
People need to get a grip. As the article I reference in my blog from CBS News points out, 24 of the 25 companies in the world that operate ports are non-American. So you CANNOT make port operations AMERICAN.
Secondly, the article points out that ALL port security in the US is run BY AMERICAN law enforcement of one sort or another. Therefore, any complaints about security go directly to the city, state, and Federal law enforcement agencies.
There is no way the US taxpayer is going to pay for inspecting the billions of cargo that come into US ports. And even if they did, it would still be possible to smuggle stuff in.
People need to suck it up and realize there IS NO such thing as port security, and never will be. Port security is a red herring to divert from the real methods of dealing with terrorists which are: 1) remove the reasons for the existence; and 2) kill them where you find them. Both methods need to be applied - but NEITHER method is being applied by the US government.
As the articles I reference in my blog today show, the US government in Iraq is SPONSORING state terrorism while at the same time continuing their assault on the Islamic world. BOTH of these actions are guaranteed to INCREASE terrorism against the United States.
This is the standard actions of the state - generate a threat to justify their existence. As the ruler in the new movie, "V for Vendetta", screams: "I want people to remember why they NEED us!"
As for who is going to know how to evade Customs at a terminal - get a clue: the guys who stand to profit by doing so are the experts - NOT the terminal operators. That should be obvious to anyone with a brain and any knowledge of how criminals and terrorists work. If you don't understand that, read Dick Marcinko's "Red Cell" SEAL team exploits. He cut through "military security" like it was a joke. And civilian contractors are equally clueless. One of his books illustrates a (fictional) way to penetrate a major Japanese airport and basically have his way with it.
It's appalling that people with absolutely no clue about terrorism or criminal methods are making pronouncements about port security. I studied terrorism technigues for ten years preparatory to trying to be one myself. I know what's possible.
Richard Steven Hack
www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com
February 27, 2006 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that it's correct that security guards and local police are used in securing the ports. But what is the real issue here? If you believe that we can keep anyone physically out of our ports then, I'd have to disagree. I work in the shipping industry and can tell you that there certainly are no standards for security in the ports. It differs from one state to another. As for cargo security, it is true that the USCG, and Customs supplies the security as much as possible.
With all of the cargo and containers entering US Ports, it's almost impossible to fully secure each container. I do agree somewhat with Mr. Hack's assessment in terms of getting at the terrorists. At the end of the day, if someone wants to get into our ports physically or send a wmd in a container, there is not much we can do to stop them from here. It seems to me that it takes good intelligence and working with other countries to stop suspect cargo/containers before they are even loaded in foreign ports. Therefore, it truly does not matter if Dubai World Ports or PSA from Singapore or anyother multinational takes control of P&O Ports.
The net effect is still the same. We will be just as vulnerable after the conclusion of the deal as we were before it even became news.
I really wish that the media did not do such a poor job in educating the public with regards to the issues surrounding DP World / P&O. This was a buyout of a public company listed in the UK. We really have very little control over the outcome.
The media has just blatantly manipulated the public in order to support politicians against the president and I am no fan of the president's policies.
February 27, 2006 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least with respect to the first part of this post, Matt should think a bit harder.
There are two security issues at ports: (1) people bringing bad things into the port, and (2) people stealing stuff. The Coast guard and customs people deal with issue (1), and the private security guards deal with issue (2). But insofar as we are concerned with terrorism, we care only about issue (1); people stealing stuff simply isn't a terrorist threat.
February 27, 2006 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now of course we find out that the Coast Guard did in fact have serious security concerns about this scam. So it appears things don't stay exactly the same no matter who actually owns the company running the port.
Does this mean the Administration applied spin to a matter of national security? They wouldn't do that, would they?
February 27, 2006 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
No.
We find out that the security concerns the Coast Guard raised were ADDRESSED by the other intelligence agencies involved in the review.
February 27, 2006 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, who is the enemy? A port operations company formerly owned by the Brits but now majority-owned by the UAE? If the enemy is _terrorists_ then this UAE-managed firm is not the enemy. It is that simple, because _that_ _firm_ has never done anything even remotely terroristic or helped terrorists in any way.
But wait, somehow this company is associated with terrorists because a hospital in the UAE hosted Bin Laden, and he used UAE banks before 9/11. The guilt by association game is easy to play when powered by paranoia.
Actually, many or even most of the Japanese put into US internment camps were still citizens of Japan, but should only the non-citizens have been put in internment camps, not the US citizens? Is that your paranoid point?
Guilt by association doesn't ask, has this company/person done anything to deserve a boycott or stint in an internment camp? When that question isn't asked and an entire nationality is automatically under suspicion, you know your reason has been defeated by paranoia.
February 28, 2006 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
(In advance: I have little opinion, and less knowledge, about how the identity of the management company might or might not affect port security in specific cases).
Having said that, I heard another rather odd argument on TV the other day -- one of the talk shows, I think. The speaker claimed: "Since security breakdowns result in port shut-downs, any port operator will want to maintain the best possible port security, because a port shut-down costs them lots of money." In short, the desire to maintain smooth continuous operation would guarantee that any (financially motivated) operator, which the Dubai company doubtless is, would continue to maintain rigorous security.
Is this correct, though? Has the desire to prevent chemical-plant shutdowns led chemical companies to establish rigorous security, for example? After all, a terrorist attack on a chemical plant making chemical X might well lead to a subsequent shutdown of all plants that make X until they could be made more secure, right?
Or is it more likely that the imperative of "smooth continuous operation" would lead to <i>less</i> rigorous security? Isn't it the case that all security is, by its very nature, inconvenient? The more secure any facility is, the less convenient to use.
In that light, I'm far less worried about Dubai Ports actively subverting port security, and much more worried that they -- and every commercial port operator -- will cut corners on inspections and holds of unverified shipments and the like, since inspections and holds and other security measures prevent the smooth and continuous operation of ANY port.
(PS: A brief explanation why "allowed" HTML tags are not working would be welcome...)
February 28, 2006 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink