Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Port Facts: A Foxnews Investigative Report
Foxnews ^ | 03/02/06 | Jim Angle, Brit Hume

Posted on 03/01/2006 9:55:01 PM PST by Stajack

In light of the rampant speculation and rumor surrounding the port debate, Brit Hume dispatched Jim Angle to the Port of Baltimore on a fact finding mission. Mr. Angle interviewed a longshoreman with almost 30 years of service, a management executive with the current terminal operator (P&O Ports), as well as customs officials. The following is a summary of the findings of the Foxnews investigative report.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: dubai; foxnews; uae
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last
To: Mike Darancette

It's safe to then say, that if someone knew what they were doing and skilled in chemistry and nuclear chemistry, in addition to some HVAC type stuff -- they could built a detection-proof container which contains a large nuke. And have a >95% chance of it making it through to turn NY harbor into instant steam and Manhattan into glass, and the near counties of `NY and NJ into dust and ash.


61 posted on 03/02/2006 1:05:13 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
can be replaced with a pronoun, and refer to an entity, quality, state, action, or concept

Um, "state" here means more like a "state of being" not a government entity.

62 posted on 03/02/2006 1:07:21 PM PST by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

You're a Patriot? I believe you. And that's great, but don't think for a SECOND that you've got the market cornered on patriotism. As far as the "hard core globalist" stuff, gimme a break. To me, that implies all that foreign law, international court, UN-loving, kum-bay-ya CRAP. If you want to call me something, call me a PRAGMATIST. I had doubts like everyone else when I first heard about the pending Port deal. But I saw an OBJECTIVE REPORT yesterday from journalists I TRUST that convinced me this deal is WORKABLE. Not to mention the added benefit of a cordial (if not lovey, dovey) relationship that ensures a continued strategic footprint in a hostile region. I did a risk/reward analysis and I like the upside, FOR AMERICA.


63 posted on 03/02/2006 1:10:54 PM PST by Stajack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: TheForceOfOne
If the UAE wanted to help terrorists attack the U.S., all they would simply need to do is . . .

Actually, with $6.8 billion to put into it, I'm sure they could come up with lots better ideas than tying the money up in this world-wide port terminal deal!

64 posted on 03/02/2006 1:13:32 PM PST by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: maryz
>>>>Um, "state" here means more like a "state of being" not a government entity.

Look again. Wasn't referring to the word "state".

can be replaced with a pronoun, and refer to an "entity, quality, state, action, or concept "

I think the right term is "entity". As in, government entity.

65 posted on 03/02/2006 1:15:32 PM PST by Reagan Man (Secure our borders;punish employers who hire illegals;stop all welfare to illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

"Entity" means something/one that has existence.


66 posted on 03/02/2006 1:18:25 PM PST by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
if you're only checking 5% of containers, you're not creating much of a disincentive for Al Qaeda to try to smuggle in nukes that way.

Does it make sense to strip-search Jewish grandmas in wheelchairs before they board a plane? Should we search 100% of the passengers?

67 posted on 03/02/2006 1:19:17 PM PST by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

Apart from the fact that your definition lists all the different categories a noun can fall into -- not the categories all nouns necessarily fall into (a logical impossiblity).


68 posted on 03/02/2006 1:19:39 PM PST by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross

False? Not false :-)

If the UAE had bad intentions, it would be IMMINENTLY EASIER for them to perpetrate a hostile act on their turf, like the YEMENIS did. That said, I agree with you that wherever we have assets at risk, HERE OR THERE, the risk needs to be managed.




69 posted on 03/02/2006 1:21:29 PM PST by Stajack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

Actually, I did read a lot of it, and it is pretty convincing stuff. Thanks.


70 posted on 03/02/2006 1:25:51 PM PST by Lekker 1 ("Computers in the future may have only 1000 vacuum tubes..." - Popular Mechanics, March 1949)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Stajack
>>>>You're a Patriot? I believe you. And that's great, but don't think for a SECOND that you've got the market cornered on patriotism.

Never said that. Using the word "nationalist" alone, may have left the wrong impression in your mind.

>>>> As far as the "hard core globalist" stuff, gimme a break.

Okay, you're a patriot too.

For me personally, I place my nationalism ahead of my internationalism. And by a wide margin too boot.

>>>>If you want to call me something, call me a PRAGMATIST.

Fine. Call me a principled conservative first and a pragmatist second. The DPW/UAE deal isn't in the best interests of the USA, long term. The law will eventually be changed. How the Feds, the Prez and our elected officials deal with this issue in the short term, is an entirely different story. So far all I've seen is a bureaucratic bungling of the highest order. As I like to call it, bureaucrats gone wild.

As for the "strategic footprint in a hostile region". I doubt that factual reality will change anytime soon. Regardless of what happens with this current flap over the CFIUS mishandling of the approval process.

71 posted on 03/02/2006 1:30:11 PM PST by Reagan Man (Secure our borders;punish employers who hire illegals;stop all welfare to illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: bvw
nuclear chemistry

nuclear chemistry??.

If the guys have that level of expertise then they can probably get it in another way. If they have a nuke on ship they could do more damage by blowing in the harbor it before the ship docks and the container can be inspected.

72 posted on 03/02/2006 1:32:54 PM PST by Mike Darancette (In the Land of the Blind the one-eyed man is king.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Da Bilge Troll
Does it make sense to strip-search Jewish grandmas in wheelchairs before they board a plane? Should we search 100% of the passengers?

Jewish grandmother rarely travel aboard transoceanic containerships. The containers are searched truly randomly -- that 5% search rate holds for shipments from the Netherlands and Saudi Arabia alike. If you're happy with that, just understand that there's an associated risk.

73 posted on 03/02/2006 1:39:01 PM PST by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: RedEyeJack
Or conversely if 100% of the containers are inspected at great expense Al Qaeda will use some less risky way of getting a weapon into the country.

Ok, make it harder for them. What else can you ask for? But protecting the borders seems like a pretty solid start.

With the measure in place they will probably do that anyway since the .05 probability of compromise is probably higher than they can tolerate for such an asset.

I don't know -- you think 9/11 had a 95% chance of success? If they have anything even remotely close to that, they'll hit.

The movie scenario from a thriller a few years ago where a weapon is secretly loaded on an airliner and detonated by a pressure device as the plane descends would have a greater chance of going off over a major metropolitan area but not a downtown area unless you "do" LA.

Ok, but that's a huge technical challenge on at least nineteen different fronts.

74 posted on 03/02/2006 1:42:28 PM PST by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Oklahoma
When "Al Qaeda" sends a nuke to the US it won't be in a container ship. It will be on a smaller craft like a yacht or fishing boat, and that smaller ship will illegally run itself into an area that isn't a port. Why go to a high traffic, secured area when it's easier to go to another location?

Ditto. They can unload it from a big cargo ship a few miles offshore to some dumpy looking fishing scow. It can cruise right up to any pier, anywhere along any coast.

Our only real protection is from the James Bonds of the world.

75 posted on 03/02/2006 1:43:01 PM PST by muleskinner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

What will you do if, after the 45-day review by high level bureaucrats, the end result is that the deal is approved?


76 posted on 03/02/2006 1:46:10 PM PST by Not A Snowbird (Official RKBA Landscaper and Arborist, Duchess of Green Leafy Things)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Stajack

REMINDER! If you missed the original Foxnews investigative report:

Go to foxnews.com...FNC TV...primetime...Special Report.
The title of the video clip is "Firsthand Look"


77 posted on 03/02/2006 1:52:27 PM PST by Stajack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandyInSeattle
>>>>What will you do if, after the 45-day review by high level bureaucrats, the end result is that the deal is approved?

What I do at that point isn't relevent.

See my post at #71.

78 posted on 03/02/2006 1:54:03 PM PST by Reagan Man (Secure our borders;punish employers who hire illegals;stop all welfare to illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

I saw #71.

I'm just wondering if you will trust the review, or continue to oppose.


79 posted on 03/02/2006 1:58:07 PM PST by Not A Snowbird (Official RKBA Landscaper and Arborist, Duchess of Green Leafy Things)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: SandyInSeattle
I will oppose any attempts to further internationalize critical aspects of America's operational infrastructure. Therefore, if CFIUS gives its second approval, I will oppose this deal. Like I said:

"The DPW/UAE deal isn't in the best interests of the USA, long term. The law will eventually be changed. How the Feds, the Prez and our elected officials deal with this issue in the short term, is an entirely different story. So far all I've seen is a bureaucratic bungling of the highest order. As I like to call it, bureaucrats gone wild."

80 posted on 03/02/2006 2:08:42 PM PST by Reagan Man (Secure our borders;punish employers who hire illegals;stop all welfare to illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson