[inquest]

I don't believe we are doing enough at the ports, but this agreement has nothing to do with it.

If the customs agencies aren't doing enough to maintain port security, then that would have to mean that they're implicitly delegating to the people operating the port to do the rest, would it not? Even if they're not explicitly delegating this power, it still could only mean that they're relying on the operators.

Let's take a worst-case scenario, and say that the operations company was owned by a government that truly is hostile towards us and wants to hurt us. Even though none of that country's citizens or agents would be anywhere near the facilities, and the longshoremen would all be unionized Archie Bunker-types, and everyone else who worked there had to go through the proper security screening, would it still put us at a disadvantage in any way?

[carolinacrazy]

If you are asking me if I think the port deal poses any heightened risk due to their location and ownership, I would say no. Is it a legitimate cause for concern for citizens? Yes, but this company is not run by Sheiks in a hands on manner, it will have very little personnel turnover, the COO looks to be American or at least non muslim, and our national intelligence agencies have said it is not a security risk.