Why hasn't the bush administration made our ports secure????

[Bouncy Ball]

Here's the deal: we had the worst terrorist attack on US soil EVER under bush's watch.

ALL during the campaigns, we heard about how if Kerry were elected, we'd be SURE to have another terrorist attack.

Now you would THINK that the bush administration would be just SCRAMBLING to secure our ports and close up loopholes as fast as they could so that they could say they did everything they could and possibly thwart a future attack.

But no. In Houston alone, the ports are just wide open. Cargo is not inspected and there are huge chemical plants and oil refineries down there!

So if another terrorist attack happens on his watch, what do you think the public's reaction will be? (We know what the media reaction will be: absolutely NO criticism for Herr Monkeything.)

I mnean, it would mean all that blather about bin Laden wanting Kerry to win was a bunch of bullshit. It would mean all that crap about a terrorist attack under Kerry would be exposed as bullshit.

[proud patriot]

1. because that would cost more than duct tape security

it would also cause the fear factor to drop .

and because U.S. citizens sercurity is NOT
a priority to him .

[Not_Giving_Up]

2. Absolutely!

My stepdad is a longshoreman. He works both at the POH and at Barbour's Cut. I've been down to both enough to know that the security is a joke. The chemical plants are even worse on security.

[cyn2]

3. All the ports are in Blue states (or at least most of 'em} n.t

[Bouncy Ball]

4. Glad you said most of them.

Because I gave an example of a big one with loads of chemical plants in a red state--Houston.

But yeah, the east coast (northern part), the west coast.

[Castilleja]

5. I would guess that

they are not concerned with that. I don't really think they are interested in the security of this nation. Themselves, maybe, but not the nation.

[Bouncy Ball]

8. The reason I said you'd think they'd be scrambling to secure the

ports is not so that Americans would be safe (I'm under no disillusion that they really give a rat shit) but so that another terrorist attack wouldn't happen on his watch.

I mean, hell, I know SOME bushbots who really would go right over the edge on his ass if it happened AGAIN.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. Setting up for another LIHOP thing, maybe?

[abelenkpe]

7. because there is big business

in letting in lots of illegal imports into the country. To secure the ports would damage the bottom line of many companies, especially clothing companies. I believe it is explained better in Lou Dobbs book exporting America. Anybody check it out? I know Lou claims to be a republican, but his book is quite interesting.

[Silverhair]

9. Not realistic to try to secure the ports.

Inspect every container??? Not possible. There is already a two weeks pile up of ships waiting for what inspection that we do perform. To try to inspect each and every container would bring the economy to a total halt. Each container would have to be unpacked and each box looked into, etc. Just can't be done.

And what would you be looking for?

Explosives? You can make explosives from common materials that can be bought once you are in the USA. First WTC bombing and OKC bombings were with homemade explosives.

Poison Gas? Easy to homemake. Mustard Gas was discovered by accident in 1845. It isn't cutting edge chemistry.

Nukes? If you wait until it is in a USA port, you have waited too late. BOOOOOOOM, and New York harbor vanishes, along with a big hunk of the city.

The only thing that can be done is to try to who is doing what overseas and do something covert about it. That means strengthening the CIA.

Not defending W here, but pointing out guarding the ports just won't work.

[Bouncy Ball]

11. Not defending W, eh?

Right.

So, we just paint a bull's eye on the ports and be done with it?

Yeah, great way to roll over.

On edit: and as someone said below, strip searching little old ladies and women with TODDLERS in airports is really an effective use of our money and resources?

And what about the lack of funding for state patrols along the coastlines? Heard about that?

The fact is, they don't give a shit. But it MIGHT just bite them in the ass hard.

[Silverhair]

17. Have you ever been a cop? I was a Private Investigator for some years.

Have you ever heard of hiding the drugs in the baby's diaper? I guess you wouldn't look there would you? Is it impossible for an old person to be a suicidal radical? Or for that matter, I can see this converstion:

Terrorist 1. Hey, have you heard the news? The US isn't checking old ladies going on planes now.

Terrorist 2. Great. My granny doesn't know if she is coming or going. I'll put the explosives on her. Americans are sooooo stupid.


The fact is, that if you are going to talk about securing the country, you will have to be rational.

Now, if you have the ability, set your emotions aside, and T H I N K.

[rodriguez94]

27. I think you missed the point

I don't believe anyone thinks they should do away with all airport security, but perhaps, they can at least examine the security issues at our ports...they are not even look into it...at all...

[Silverhair]

32. The poster seemed to be objecting to searching kids & old ladies.

It was pointing out that EVERYBODY has to be checked. If you make exceptions, that is were the weapon will be hidden.

Prior to 9-11, no one though of box cutters as deadly weapons, or of airliners being used for kamikaze attacks.

I agree that the airport security issue does need to be addressed.

Further, the poster I was answering was attacking me for pointing out that the ports are impossible to guard.

Just because Bush is NOT doing something does NOT automatically make it a good idea.

[vpigrad]

12. Why are you defending Bushie?

Also, do you have something to gain from attack on a port? It sounds like it.

[Bouncy Ball]

13. Silverhair.

Radar. Hitting. Has been for a while.

[Silverhair]

19. ??????? NT

[Silverhair]

15. Not defending Bush.

If we are going to guard our country, we need to be rational, not emotional. Just because Bush may or may not do something, is NOT a reason for doing the opposite.

We have to deal in facts. And a brutal fact of real life, is that you can't inspect all the containers, and even if you could, it would not do any good.

If we are going to win elections, we have to show that we are using our reasoning powers. If we just say, Bush did this so I will do the opposite, we won't win - nor should be. WE MUST BE OURSELVES, NOT MERELY AN ANTI-BUSH.

Now, how about a rational discussion about it? I DID list RATIONAL reasons. Can you discuss rationally how to protect the country, or do you require a knee jerk "opposite of Bush" response?

[DoYouEverWonder]

23. The people bringing in the containers are forced to pay

for the inspections. Bet you didn't know that? It adds $1000's of dollar to the cost of every container and is putting small importers out of business. In the meantime the big companies like Walmart and JC Penney are excluded from having to be inspected.

The whole port security situation is a sham and a joke.

[Silverhair]

26. You are correct.

My wife brings in containers for the small import place she works for, and they have to pay every time they are spot checked. It does add a lot to their overhead.

And it is idiotic. Suppose some one were trying to smuggle in something bad. Does anybody here thing it would be in a box labeled, "Bad Stuff"? Hell, no. It would be disguised to look like something ordinary, or well hidden. Anthrax could be in a bottle inside a doll.

People who cry for inspections just don't know what they are talking about.

[leftofthedial]

10. because the know that the "war" on "terror" is a sham

they invented it

no need to actually do anything that has limited PR value.

Now strip-searching little old ladies in airports and making us all endure invasions of our privacy . . . THAT has some sizzle!

[Castilleja]

20. I am beginning to agree with your idea

That the *war on terror* is a helpful little tool for pressing an agenda. It is working.

[nascarblue]

35. YOu are correct! Read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"

It's the exact same background Republicanazis who ran the drugs out of South America with Operation Black Eagle. Otherwise known as Iran(Iraq) Contra and the Ollie North, George HW Bush crack cocaine trade. Now we have the same scam in the Middle East except it's heroin and oil.
http://dominionpaper.ca/labour/2004/12/19/confession.html

[two gun sid]

14. Because no one has any idea how

No country that has been confronted with terrorism has been able to stop it. Not Israel. Not Great Britain. It is impossible. A determined group or individual will always find a way to strike. Personally, I think the fact that our leaders don't tell us these home truths is a great crime.
Instead, they use the fear of terrorism for political purposes. We as Americans need to realize that the world is a dangerous place and there are no guarantees of our safety. No amount of ribbons or bumperstickers or prayer or duct tape will ever insure that we will not be attacked again.
We need leaders that actually try to understand why we are in the terrorists sights, not give us stupid slogans like, "they're freedom haters".
If we are hit again, people are gonna freak. They won't turn on Bush, they'll turn each other and make it easier for the neocons to continue making this country a dictatorship.

[Silverhair]

18. Yes. Someone who understands!!!

My compliments to a thinking person.

[w4rma]

16. How would protecting Americans help Bush consolidate power? (nt)

[toddzilla]

21. not everything is about mr. bush.

It's all a big fucking joke anyway.

you are not safe.

you will never be safe.

you were never safe.

get used to reality.

someone could break down my door and kill me right now.

[Bridget Burke]

22. Texas Monthly printed a piece on a hypothetical terrorist attacck..

On the Ship Channel. A dirty bomb went off in a container & another part of the terrorist team got into a chemical plant & released chlorine gas. There were quite a few deaths, but mostly in the areas near the Channel & that plant; River Oaks, Tanglewilde (where Bush Sr lives) & other fine neighborhoods were not in serious danger. But there would be fear & panic throughout the city--& the country.

(Of course, you may have been frightened off that issue by the big honking picture of Laura Bush on the cover.)

Too bad that inspecting containers would be slow & boring. It would involve hiring lots of people & probably not be profitable enough to provide big, fat contracts for Bush cronies. (The ones who live in River Oaks, Tanglewilde, etc.)

[Silverhair]

24. The real problem is that it would not work. NT

[Bridget Burke]

37. The real problem is that they don't care.

Flushing away billions on Star Wars II is more your president's style. And we KNOW that will not work.

[mrgorth]

42. Agreed.

[Silverhair]

43. I am talking specifially about protecting the ports.

I am not talking about anything else.

Trying to protect the ports won't work. As Democrats we MUST put forward workable plans, not wish lists.

Because I point out that protecting the ports by inport inspections is impossible - you think I am a Republican?????

Please point out any logical flaw in my discussion of protecting the ports.

[rodriguez94]

25. Morehead City, NC State Port

Ggood question...we have what I believe to be at least the 2nd largest port on the east coast here in Carteret County...a few weeks ago...a couple of stowaways were found on a ship from Africa...how hard would it be to smuggle it a bomb????

[Silverhair]

29. A suitcase nuke is small and easy to hide.

It could easily be hidden on a ship and a whole team of inspectors would not be able to find it.

They are really the size of a backpack. Not that powerfull has nukes go, only about one KT, about 1/20th the size of Hiroshima - only.

For that matter a full sized nuke isn't that big either, and on something the size of of ship, easily hidden.

[DaedelusNemo]

38. Couldn't radiation be detected from outside via scanning ? /nt

[Silverhair]

44. It can be shielded by surrounding it with mass.

How much mass, and how sensitive the detectors are is beyond my knowledge. Maybe the dectectors are good enough that this is not a real world worry. I don't know.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nascarblue]

31. Are you on medication?

You've got to be one of the dumbest mofo's I've ever seen on here.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bridget Burke]

36. Send the "well armed militia" to the ports.

Let them prove their value.

[ET Awful]

40. Guess what Crunch . . .

Had we not wasted hundreds of billions "going on the offensive" against a nation that posed NO THREAT WHATSOEVER to the US, we could have secured the ports.

[Silverhair]

45. Securing the ports is impossible.

No matter how much money you spend, it can't be done. And in the process you would bring the entire economy to a halt.

What would you be looking for anyway?

Explosives? The first WTC bombing and the OKC bombing were homemade explosives. Fertilizer & fuel oil.

Poison Gas? That can be made at home too. Mustard Gas was discovered in 1845.

Biological stuff? How will you know it when you see it?

Nukes? Once it is in the port, it is too late. BOOOOOOOM. Port gone.

Please think, instead of reacting emotionally.

[ET Awful]

46. Impossible? I think not. Depends on your definition of secure.

Fort Knox is "secure" but it would still be possible to get in if you were skilled enough hand dedicated enough.

All it takes to "secure" our ports is increased monitoring and inspection of all ships and shipping containers, as opposed to the less than 2% or so that are currently inspected.

Please think instead of reacting emotionally.

[Silverhair]

47. Please tell me HOW you would inspect millions of containers.

Remember, you still have to have an economy going. And please answer the specific questions I have raised about said inspections. All you have done is assert that it can be done. I have given specific problems with the inspection approach.

What are your answers to the specific problems I have raised?

[ET Awful]

48. Quick! Tell me how each of those containers is moved . . .

if you said by CRANE, you get a cupie doll. Now, guess what! The majority of harmful substances, be they chemical, biological, nuclear, or even conventional, can be detected by scanning devices without human intervention (yup, this true). It doesn't take a huge leap of deductive reasoning to determine that if you have a piece of equipment that interacts withh every shipping container, and you have another piece of equipment that can scan for hazardous substances, the two could be integrated with little time and effort.

[Silverhair]

50. I don't believe you about the scanning devices.

Yes, we can xray, and have detectors that can sniff for trace chemicals. But those can be spoofed. We don't have Star Trek type stuff that can be waved at something and tell exactly what is inside it.

If you can provide a solid link to show the real world existence of those scanners, I would most welcome it.

And you still haven't addressed the question, that if it is a nuke, catching it after it is already in-port is a little bit too late.

Nor have you addressed the question of what you are going to be looking for. Please read my statements regarding explosives, poison gas, etc.

[ET Awful]

51. So, you don't believe that radiation can be detected?

Or that chemicals can? You might want to do a little research on that there buddy. We can detected dangerous chemicals in very minute amounts.

I suggest you actually do some research instead of cowering in fear.

No, it is not "too late" if it's already in port. It's "too late" when it's been detonated. I know you'd like to believe otherwise, but it just ain't so.

Please take a valium.

on edit: Here's a quick example for even conventional explosives http://www.airport-technology.com/contractors/security/thermo/

[Silverhair]

52. Have you ever heard of sealed containers?

By the word containers, I am not talking about the big boxes on the ships, but any smaller item that can enclose another. The thing you are looking for can be in a cleaned sealed container that doesn't even leak trace gases.

Radiation can be shielded in the depths of the ship. Once inside the port area, then the bomb is detonated. You have to intercept it BEFORE it gets here.

And you have NOT addressed the problem of the stuff being homemade after the terrorists get in the states. It has happened that way before.

Most important, the terrorists have the advantage of time. They can study whatever security methods you use, and then figure our how to defeat them.

But the worst part is that they don't need to defeat your port inspections. The can make whatever they need, after they are here - except nukes and maybe biologicals.

Please respond to the specific problems that I have raised.

[ET Awful]

53. Ummm if it's "homemade" you would be discussing base

components, not completed substanaces or devices. Those would be easier to obtain HERE than to smuggle in.

I have addressed the "problems" you've simply ignored the answers.

"It has happened that way before?" When? If you're discussing ANFO bombs and the like, those had NOTHING TO DO WITH PORTS, they were constructed with domestically available materials.

As to your "sealed" container argument, sealed containers can be examined too you know, ever heard of x-ray? It's a really neat invention.

Of course now you'll try to argue that lead can't be penetrated by an x-ray . . . guess what! Lead can be detected and used to determine which containers require manual inspection.

It would appear that your goal is not to make any attempt to secure ports, but to not try because, after all, we're fighting the "terrorists" in Iraq. . . that never attacked, tried to attack, or had the means to attack the US.

You are trying to use your "homemade" argument, and ignoring the FACT that being homemade precludes being brought through a port, but would, instead, involve domestically obtained materials (which are also not secured nor guarded, i.e. chemical plants, and I know of at least one location that until last year manuficatured iridium sources on weekly basis that are radioactive enough to use in a dirty bomb, but the manufacturing facility was not secured in any way other than an alarm on the glass front door.

[Silverhair]

55. Xray only shows relative denisty and shape.

It still doesn't tell you what you are looking at. You can't tell by xray if you are looking at children's modeling clay, or bars of C4.

Nor is it possible to guard everything in America. We just could not have that many guards. Also, people who are guards get bored and eventually let their guard down. After a few years of nothing happening at a particular plant, the guards become ineffective.

My goal is to point out that a massive attempt to guard the ports will be futile, and a waste of effort that could be better used elsewhere.

[ET Awful]

56. It would appear that your goal is to detract from real practical

ideas by saying "it's not possible" rather than looking at real possibilities and technology and ways to improve on them.

There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I look at things that could be, and ask why not? It's a trait I learned from Bobby Kennedy.

[Silverhair]

58. So now you are turning to personal attack??

My goal is real solutions, not pie in the sky. Quoting Bobby Kennedy is NOT going to make any technology do what it can't. The laws of physics don't care about politics.

Excess effort put into efforts doomed to fail, that could have been put into other efforts with a chance of success, only make us MORE vunerable.

Please notice that I have not attacked your motives.

[DaedelusNemo]

54. Sealing off radiation?

What i've heard is that radiation from boom-boom quality materials cuts through quite a bit of covering - short of lead, or three feet of concrete, which could be specified as a packaging no-no. Admittedly, i'm no expert, and if you have more detailed info i'd like to hear it.

Wanting to get this stuff before it gets to a port is a good point. A couple of possibilities: 1) our customs in foreign ports do it. Having our customs in foreign ports is already being moved forward on by this administration. 2) have Geiger-scanning waypoints out to sea shipping must go through before being allowed to approach our ports from overseas.

You want me to address the problems of things being made in-country - i don't know why, it seems to me you are entirely right on that point, except in the case of nukes, which is surely the principal concern and the one i was getting at. And given its radioactive quality, it's a lot more detectable than the others.

And yes, terrorists will always be trying to find ways around what we set up - that doesn't mean that we can't make it harder for them. We can keep thinking, too.

Basically, my port-guard plan (right now) would involve radiation detectors and enough spot-inspection to put that extra element of risk in their plans. I agree with you, though, that shippers shouldn't be charged for arbitrary checking - taking it out of general shipping/commerce tax would be more fair.

[Silverhair]

57. Good thinking. You are NOT merely reacting.

Nukes MUST be intercepted out at sea. At this point I don't know enough about how much shielding for the size of the nuke, the sensitivity of the dectectors, etc, to be able to say what can and can't be done. We are in agreement that waiting until it is in port to look for it is TOO LATE.

[DaedelusNemo]

59. Thanks, and hope we can get enough info to diagree again sometime :) /nt

[paulk]

49. Excellent points, Silverhair

throughout this thread...

I've had containers shipped in, and there is just no way, if someone wanted it badly enough, a terrorist attack through those means could be stopped. Not to mention the economic damage inspections would cost.

There are far better uses for the money, like buying up nuclear mat'l (which Bush has been failing at), increasing intelligence operations, etc.

Besides, Bin Laden, or any other terrorist group capable of carrying out 9/11, doesn't need to do it again. They've already accomplished their goals - goading Bush into destabilizing the Middle East. Bin Laden is playing chess while Bush is playing checkers.

For Bush, it's a political bonus to have people in fear of terrorism anyway. That's why we get the constant ads from the Dept. of Homeland Security. How do you protect your kids from a terrorist attack? The media stories about green lasers in airplane cockpits. Etc.

[nascarblue]

30. I live near the biggest port in the US..LA Harbor

And while I have noticed more patrols in the harbor, it surely doesn't come close to the 300 billion they gave to Homeland Security. I was born in this city and San Pedro is a very old and tight community. We do our own security. Once again, another scam to raid the piggy bank.

[napi21]

34. Primarily because it would slow down processing imports.

You don't realize how many businesses depend on most of their products being imported from somewhere. If you insisted on EVERYTHING being inspected, the processing time would be reduced so dramaticaly, our economy would come close to a grinding halt. HAve you forgetten about JIT (just in time) inventory, etc?

We all must remember that there is no way to completely protect everyone all the time.

I suggest the better idea is to try to eliminate the cause of the attacks. I'm sure no muslim, but I can understand why they don't want people they consider infidels living, working ans staying in their countries. If the US is going to consistently side with Israel over the Palestinians, we've injected ourselves into the fight instead of trying to play mediator.

Cure the cause of the problem and we won't have to be so concerned about somebody trying to kill us.

[leesa]

39. Because THEY make the terrorism. THEY did 9-11 and they know

that the booga booga of terrorism is just that. They made it up and scare you with it daily, but they know the risk is small.

[LiberalCat]

41. MIHOP. The terrorists are here.

No need to secure the ports. Also, it gives him an excuse if another "terrorist attack" happens. The BFEE decided it was easier to loot the treasury with defense contracts rather than paying Halliburton to secure our ports.