Posted on 06/14/2002 9:48:15 AM PDT by Robert357
WASHINGTON -- Foreign flag vessels, many of shadowy origins, now account for 90 percent of shipping into and out of the United States and could pose a security risk to the country, lawmakers were told Thursday.
Of greatest concern is the "flag of convenience" system where ship owners often have no connection to the country under which their ship is registered, witnesses told a House Armed Services Committee panel.
This system, said William Schubert, maritime administrator with the Transportation Department, "can inadvertently open the door for criminal and terrorist activity that would be impossible under the U.S. flag registry."
"From my review of certain registries," said Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the panel, "it is apparent that we have virtually no idea who owns, or who controls a number of these ships."
Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., singled out Liberia, citing U.N. reports that revenues from its flag registry were channeled to a Russian arms dealer with ties to the Taliban and al-Qaida. Without guarantees that those revenues are transparent and serve the needs of the Liberian people, the registry should be shut down, he said.
Ship operators in the United States and other developed countries have long registered their vessels in countries that offer lower fees, less restrictive laws, lower taxes and cheaper crews.
Liberia has hosted a U.S.-based shipping registry since 1949 and now ranks second to Panama in total shipping tonnage in U.S. ports. One-third of imported oil arrives on Liberian-flagged tankers.
The system brings in about $18 million a year for Liberia's war-torn government and its former warlord leader Charles Taylor.
Beyond Liberia, Rear Adm. Paul Pluta, assistant commandant for the Coast Guard, cited reports that Osama bin Laden covertly owns a shipping fleet and used a cargo ship in 1998 used to deliver supplies used in the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
The Karina A, a ship seized by the Israeli navy last January with a cargo of 50 tons of weapons headed for the Palestinian Authority, was owned by an Iraqi and flew the flag of Tonga under a registry run by a Greek company.
Schubert said pre-screening of crew is one way of reducing threats. But he also suggested that market and financial incentives be offered to make the U.S. flag more attractive to U.S. investors. "There is no better assurance to our nation's security interests than a strong U.S.-flag merchant marine," he said.
I almost missed this and find it truly significant.
OK, now we know why all the concern over port security and cargo screening to US ports. This also probably explains the concern over blowing up/running into major US bridges (i.e. Golden Gate, etc.) Yes, just like a jet liner, a cargo vessel could be run at full speed into something. Yes, just like a truck bomb that was used in the first WTC bombing a cargo ship could be loaded with explosives and moved next to something it shouldn't be near and detonated. Yes, a cargo vessel could serve as a delivery system for scuba divers with explosives. Yes, a cargo vessel could be used to run into another ship crowded with people.
As time goes on, I think we will better understand why our government leaders are so concerned about the potential for harm that they have declared war on terrorism. I would like to see Congress pass a declaration of war!
Story about how cargo container of AK-47 disappearing and ship was later abandoned
In a related matter, if Ben Laden, and thirty of his top aides, were killed today, would the threat of Islamic terrorism be practically diminished at all? I say, "no."
We just simply don't have the manpower to do it yet. I heard recently that I think it's 50,000 containers per day come into this country! We're just not prepared to inspect them all yet.
Someone had an interesting idea on some talk show recently, that we should be getting each country that sends us shipping containers to do the inspecting in their own ports, and then seal the containers so nothing can be hidden after that.
But I can see where that would leave open some options for the terrorists, who could easily plant some of their own in the foreign ispection teams.
There are plenty of people unemployed and out of work who can be trained to do it. These people would be glad to have a job.
Against whom!? What do we do, declare war against an individual? Against a firm? Against an organization?
It isn't that easy! We're living in a science-fiction/spy/mystery novel now, kids. One of those "far, future" worlds where multinational firms or insanely rich people are able to control vast resources against nation-states...and are able to mount a pretty decent battle, simply because their disciples do not wear the battle uniform of any one nation. They are everywhere and nowhere.
How do you declare war against that?!?
Don't get me wrong, I think we need to take the war to their doorsteps, and that means cutting off support and aid to Pakistan, and stomping on Musharraf and all the assorted warlords there -- hard!
My gut says that Al Qaeda's leadership is holed up in Pak or even Kashmir. We need to go into both places, kick butt and take names. We need to go after Saddam, now. We need to go after Arafat and stop playing games with the Saudis.
Clinton used executive orders to get anything he wanted. Bush ought to use an executive order to drill on the North Slope, and free us from having to kiss up to the Saudis. That way, we can truly hold them accountable for their actions, Democrats be damned.
A declaration of war won't change a thing. Daschle and his fellow gnomes will do their best to stand in the way of anything constructive. Bush ought to just do what he needs to do by executive order. There won't be a damned thing the Dems can do about it.
Don't get me wrong, I think we need to take the war to their doorsteps, and that means cutting off support and aid to Pakistan, and stomping on Musharraf and all the assorted warlords there -- hard!
My gut says that Al Qaeda's leadership is holed up in Pak or even Kashmir. We need to go into both places, kick butt and take names. We need to go after Saddam, now. We need to go after Arafat and stop playing games with the Saudis.
I agree with much of what you say. I am now beginning to understand how much infrastructure this "organization" may own or control. If it has a fleet of ships they should be discoverd and sunk or confiscated. Every asset of the organization should be removed from the control of the organization and if it take an act of war to go on the high seas and seize vessels, so be it.
I am beginning to see that there is a lot that is wrong with our ability to inspect and protect our ports.
Do you think we ought to tell the CIA that it might be a good idea to look into this......
Your right, but what I find interesting is that in Puget Sound (Seattle/Tacoma/Bremerton shipyard, Everett naval station, major oil refineries in Anacortes & Ferndale, and Bangor submarine station) The Coast Guard just deployed one of four a naval swat teams and we got a number of X-ray-like devices to scan cargo containers. These devices allow can be mounted on barges to go up beside a ship and scan the containers or they can have a the container when unloaded from the ship, just be driven infront of the device to scan its interior.
We many not be there yet, but they are really devoting resources to beefing up the US ability to examine cargo, especially from ships of questionable registry.
No, I expect that they, the FBI, and Homeland Security all know about this as do the Coast Guard.
I didn't know about this and I would wager that lots of members of the public aren't aware of this. I also think that it explains and legitimizes alot of strange things that have been happening since September 11th, but didn't previously make sense. That "connecting the dots" is why I read Free-Republic and enjoy the posts here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.