FairOpinion said: But I also read, that all containers to go past radiation detectors, so they are screened for radiation.
A few days ago, here on FR, I read that only one port has one radiation detection machine that works. No, they are not all screened for radiation. Many have been screaming for years for more port protection.
Here's some from a 2 minute google search.
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=106597
A General Accounting Office (GAO) report released this week contradicts claims by Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge that U.S. ports are in "full compliance" with anti-terrorism standards scheduled to go into effect today. The report alleges that about 7 percent of all U.S. ports and more than half of U.S. ships have not even been reviewed, and that the process for reviewing some other ports is flawed. The big problem, however, is money: the LA Times reports, "experts said yesterday that inadequate government funding has slowed efforts" to secure the nation's ports. As in many areas of homeland security, President Bush has underfunded his own security mandates for U.S. ports, putting Americans at risk. American Progress's P.J. Crowley writes that as a result of underfunding, "a lot of the security improvements the Bush administration is touting exist on paper and not yet on the pier."
ADMINISTRATION'S RESOURCE DIVISION 'SELF-DEFEATING': Stephen Flynn, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a retired U.S. Coast Guard Commander, says the administration's lack of funding for port security is part of a "self-defeating and dangerous division of resources between the U.S. military and homeland security." Referring to the billions the administration has spent overseas, Flynn points out, "For the cost of two F-22 fighter jets and three days of combat in Iraq…the nation's ports could be secured against terror."
http://hutchison.senate.gov/ccinfrastructure.htm
Port Security
The final question on this issue concerned port security. I wrote, "Ninety-five percent of our nation's overseas trade is carried via ship. Yet only two percent of inbound containers are checked by U.S. Customs at our nation's ports. How do you think we should protect our ports?" This issue is critical for all coastal points of entry in the nation, especially here in Texas where numerous ports line the Gulf of Mexico. The Port of Houston takes in more foreign tonnage than any other port in America and handles half of the petrochemical capacity in the country. Your survey responses indicate that you too are concerned about the security of our ports. Fifty-two percent of respondents felt that ships entering U.S. ports should be subject to as much scrutiny as airplanes coming into U.S. airports, while 32 percent felt that cargo aboard ships should be inspected at random.
__________________
Securing our ports: Failing miserably
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ^ | Saturday, March 5, 2005 |
Two years and several million dollars later, U.S. ports are not any more secure than when Homeland Security started doling out government grants, the department's inspector general concludes.
The IG's 70-page report offers a snapshot of a bloated federal bureaucracy at its worst.
Instead of focusing on the nation's 10 primary ports in California and New York -- which handle about 80 percent of all international shipping -- about $517 million went out in scattershot grants.
"Here's some from a 2 minute google search. "
====
That's what happens, when you don't pay enough attention.
1. http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=106597
This is from a leftist, Bush hating site, and it's from back a while ago, talking about Ridge.
2. http://hutchison.senate.gov/ccinfrastructure.htm
Hutchinson seems to unfortunaHS.tely be parroting the MSM lies.
3. NO link to your Pittsburgh Tribune-Review article.
====
Bottom line: I guess you rather believe leftist Bush hating sites and the MSM, than the official statements of the DHS.
To Whom it may Concern:
Ok Time AGAIN, for the facts. You can get the information on Container Security at this link. Click on the link at the top of the thread to see the OFFICAL facts, not the make believe talking points and other nonsense of the Port Deal Critics.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1590048/posts
We scan 100% of the containers coming into the US for radiation all ready. That information has been pointed out to the critics repeatedly. We ONLY NEED to physically inspect about 6% of Containers because of security concerns. It is fraudulent to claim we "only search 3-6% of containers. IF we needed to, we could search more.
The Terminal Operator controls NOTHING about the shipment. That is true of any freight handler be it trucking, air freight or port terminal. The Bills of Ladeing are controlled BY THE SHIPPER as well as the RECEIVER and must go thru Customs. You do NOT let the shipper contol the Purchase Order/Shipment manifest because it is a legal document which once the reciving party signs legally obligates them to pay. Letting the Bill be handled by the Freight Handler would create the easiest possibility to steal. They simply would alter the shipment documents and pocket a portion of each shipment. Thus the Shipper could not PROVE they shipped it and would have no ability to compel payment because the Receiver never signed for it. Legally until the Receiver SIGNS for the freight it belongs TO THE SHIPPER, NOT the Port Terminal or other Freight Handlers. Because of the ability of Port Termanal, Truck Companies and others to misroute, steal or lose Freingt what they pick up and what they deliver is monitored by everyone involved. That is basic business. If you sign for 8000 cases and only got 6000, YOU are LEGALLY liably for those missing 2000 cases. The original Shipper gets paid based on what you sign for, NOT what they say they shipped. It is NOT easy to add or subtract things from shipments as the Port Terminal Hysterics keep screaming. That too, is another of their lies.
The level of RABID ignorance here is simply inexcusable. The United States is giving NOTHING away. Two weeks into this story it is utterly inexcusable for anyone to be this rabidly ignorant. Here are the facts. A PRIVATE company, P&O is selling it Port Terminal Operations. A company Called Dubai Port World is BUYING that private company. Part of what they are acquiring is 9 terminal leases, out of 300, in 6 US Ports. 9 out of 300 GET IT? The US Govt is giving NOTHING away. They have NOTHING to do with the deal. They CANNOT require the leases be granted to some other company. All they can do is REJECT this or that company from getting the leases. Then P&O would either have to find a different buyer OR Dubai Port World will simply sue. Either way, the same American Dock Workers, the same American Clerks, Truck Drivers, Gate Guards, Office Workers, Cleaning Crews etc etc etc etc who NOW work of P&O will switch to getting their checks from Dubai Port World. Some Stock Holders and upper level management will change. The name on the outside of the building will change, the Labor Unions will have to negotiate new contracts (which is why they do NOT want this deal to go thru) and that is about ALL that will change. No misstatements, distortions and lies about "Running our Port" "Compromising Port Security", "Access to Sensitive Military Cargo Shipments" or any of the other utterly stupid nonsense being spewed by the critics is going to change the FACTS.
Those are the FACTS. That is not White House Spin, RNC Talking Points and all the other stupid nonsense being screamed to drown out the FACTS. Time for people to grow up and LEARN the facts. How can people capable of using a computer be so utterly IGNORANT of the facts of this matter after 2 weeks? There must be a genetic element. Some Invincible Stupidity Shield gene that keeps people from being able to absorb even ONE fact about this topic. The display of panic, hysteric, bigotry and ignorance on the part of some of the Port Deal Hysterics is inexcusable.