Posted on 12/30/2002 8:36:21 PM PST by Pokey78
U.S. Fears Terrorists at Sea; Tracking Ships Is Difficult
U.S. intelligence officials have identified approximately 15 cargo freighters around the world that they believe are controlled by al Qaeda or could be used by the terrorist network to ferry operatives, bombs, money or commodities over the high seas, government officials said.
American spy agencies track some of the suspicious ships by satellites or surveillance planes and with the help of allied navies or informants in overseas ports. But they have occasionally lost track of the vessels, which are continuously given new fictitious names, repainted or re-registered using invented corporate owners, all while plying the oceans.
As they scramble to keep tabs on the largely unregulated and secretive global maritime industry, U.S. officials have no end of worries about how nautical terrorists could attack U.S. or allied ports or vessels, officials said. They cite such scenarios as al Qaeda dispatching an explosives-packed speedboat to blow a hole in the hull of a luxury cruise ship sailing the Caribbean Sea or having terrorists posing as crewmen commandeer a freighter carrying dangerous chemicals and slam it into a harbor.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Why not return to a policy of non-intervention, lead by example and allow no significant threat to the United States?
It seems to me that we are in the role of globocop to protect the interests of multinational corporations.
That's what I get for engaging in hyperbole. :O)
There are 6 THOUSAND miles of borders between Mexico and Canada alone....
Again, you dodge the argument that Barnacle and I raised (which is that the MORE troops and BP personnel that are manned on our borders, the MORE secure our borders become) by suggesting that border protection is impossible because it can't be done “100% perfectly” (false dilemma)--i.e. there will always be those few that manage to slip through.
Like I said (sorry I didn't ping you), it's a ridiculous argument that is purposely constructed to avoid discussion of common sense measures that would MOST CERTAINLY enhance and improve our security from terrorism and border hoppers.
What would I do?
If it were left up to me, I'd bring back thousands of our troops that are on baby sitting missions in countries like Japan, Germany, Haiti, Bosnia and redeploy them on our borders (north and south) until they could be replaced permanently with BP personnel. I'd halt ALL immigration from terrorists harboring nations. I'd appoint a no nonsense INS commissioner that is 100% committed to enforcing the immigration laws of the land, not a tired Open Borders Beltway Hack like Ziglar who is only interested in how many services the INS can extend to immigrants.
That's just for starters. There plenty of other actions we could take, like installing hi-tech monitoring equipment and surveillance techniques across those 6 thousand miles which would make the job of apprehending border jumpers that much more effective.
None of these actions are physically impossible. All it requires is some political will, which is sadly lacking in Bush and Congress for that matter.
No, I'm not setting up a false dilemma anymore than you are. We merely disagree on your and Barnacle's seemingly obvious assumption that more troops (BP or otherwise) can at this point make more than diminishing returns in nabbing terrorists.
I don't think that has been proven at all, especially if you assume that our border control is a disaster to begin with. Removing resources from elsewhere and burning them in the old isolated INS/BP infrastructure could have been decided by GW to be a net waste of resources.
Perhaps it was decided that putting more into INS before the Homeland Security dept was organized would've caused more chaos and porous-border interagency-responsibility confusion than it would've helped. For example, combining the Coast Guard and INS under the same authority might cure more problems than merely dumping more funding into two independent bureaucracies. Like in Brownsville in my home state at the confluence of the Gulf of Mexico, Rio Grand and Mexican border. Which is more effective in identifying suspicious terrorist activity: Merely doubling the existing funding of the INS, Customs, and Coast Guard; -or- combine their reporting structure into a single entity that is specifically responsible for terrorism and go from there?
Maybe this is why GW kicked Lott's ass when he indicated he'd sit on his butt and not pass Homeland Security during the lame duck session???
So again, I merely discount your premise that it is obvious that adding more fuel to the fire first is the best first step. Additionally, I do not assume that transferring deployed troops out of Japan (with Korea looming,) or depopulating bases in Germany (such a Ramstein as a major support and logistical center for the conflict in Iraq) and retraining them for Border Patrol duty is the best use of the military's limited resources right now while we're in the midst of global conflict.
And finally, I find it laughable that any poster on this board is arrogant enough to believe that they could possibly be informed on this issue so much more so than the POTUS/SECDEF/SOS/NSA etc, that they would call the current Administration's actions "bordering on treason!"
I'm not a bushbot, but I can at least see that this crisis is not simple enough to ever be framed in a simpleminded "either/or" dilemma.
It's not a question of being more informed on the issue than the POTUS (appeal to authority?). Of course Bush knows FAR MORE about this issue than anyone outside his circle of advisors. That's not the point. The point IS political orientation and judgement. I, along with many conservatives, feel that George Bush does not share our ideals for a Sovereign America where immigration laws are enforced like any other law in the land. If he did, he wouldn't ramble on about Amnesties for Illegal Aliens or appoint Open Border hacks to run the INS.
Bill Clinton also knew the intricacies of what’s involved in national security. Did that inside perspective stop the Creep from selling our missile technology to the Chinese? How times in history has a president, despite having tremendous information on a problem, make a disastrous policy decision because it conflicted with their political views? You say you are not a Bushbot but you certainly argue like one.
I don't think that has been proven at all, especially if you assume that our border control is a disaster to begin with.
You don't think our border control is a disaster? LOL. You left me speechless. Yeah, sure, just say it. Anyway, a little factoid to your first point. A few weeks after 9/11 Bush dispatched a National Guard contingent on the borders for a short period of time. During that time, they stopped some 30% of the illegal immigration flow. To continue arguing that putting manpower on the borders has little effect on the problem of illegal entry into the U.S. is, well, Off The Wall IMO. It’s like saying, all things being the same, the size of an army has no bearing on how much of an attack it can mount on an enemy.
And perhaps you explain what just what our troops are doing on the borders of several countries around the world. I mean WHY are they there, if they are unable to have any effect on deterring border infiltrators. Or does the magic end when troops are stationed on our borders? Enough Said.
Oh, if only we had access to all of the high level information that Bush does.
Maybe, just maybe we might not see his decision to spend $300,000 each on 177 border patrol checkpoints and 12,000 border guards for Afghanistan as spitting in the face of the 60% +, U.S. Taxpayers that want our own borders securred.
For myself, I'm going to do some soul searching. Sam_Paine is right. How could I or anyone else question this administrations actions, or lack of action?
How could anyone believe Bush to be a hypocritical, pandering, globalist, RINO, CINO, 'one (3rd) worlder'? After all, he always says such nice, patriotic things in front of the cameras. He's so sincere.
I feel just awful that I've been unwilling to put my 'seeing-eye dog' needing, brail using, dark glasses wearing, white cane wagging, 'blind' trust in Bush before this.
>sarcasm<
They cite such scenarios as al Qaeda dispatching an explosives-packed speedboat to blow a hole in the hull of a luxury cruise ship sailing the Caribbean Sea or having terrorists posing as crewmen commandeer a freighter carrying dangerous chemicals and slam it into a harbor.
Bill the product for the inspection and decide if foreign production is really that good a deal. We should be charging them for safe transit too. Why should the taxpayer subsidize the export of their jobs by assuming the risk? Free trade socializes risk.
I don’t know more... I just know better.
If you would've considered my statement dispassionately, "I don't think that the [feeding of more cash into the old INS is necessarily an improvement in border security] has been proven at all, especially if you assume that our border control is a disaster to begin with..." you'd realize it agrees with your premise...namely that the INS/BP is a mess.
But you didn't "get it." You replied, "You don't think our border control is a disaster? LOL." Of course I think the borders are porous, but I ask that since they are so deficient as we all know, why would you merely increase their authority and funding to do their job 2 times, 3 times or 10 times as poorly and disorganized as they do it now??? I just don't think they are as high a priority right now, as say, accelerating the production of the PAC-3 anti-air/missile missile, or deploying to Iraq or bolstering the Pacific theater. The BP bureaucrats need to be reorganized and whipped into shape first before increasing their responsibilities and funding whether you hate Bush or not.
And 4Freedom, get off your sarcastic caps lock! I did not mean to imply that Bush's cabinet is infallible for crying out loud. But I thought I could encourage you guys to see the viewpoint that perhaps nobody on this forum is infallible either; I certainly don't claim to be.
However, since Rhine seems real interested in philosophy, try this:
You claim that some additional manpower on the border is beneficial to reduction in illegal immigration. Ok. And you seem to believe that all additional reductions in immigration will to some extent increase security. Ok. Therefore, you insist to increase security, we MUST add additional manpower to the border.
Even if we accept both assertions, if you mind your p's and q's, you'll recognize your own argument as M->I, and I->S, :. if S then M. Maybe "Distributed Affirmation of the Consequence?" Even if it's sometimes true or mostly true, we still call that assertion "false."
I asked a philosophy prof once what to do if you try to have a rational logical discussion with someone and they don't want to try to play by the rules. He said, "You stop." I'll stop now.
Seriously, I hope you'll realize that I agree with you more generally than you'd like to read into it as an adversary.
That he is. And just because he act's like a hypocritical, pandering, globalist, RINO, CINO, 'one (3rd) worlder' all the time doesn't make him one. After all, he's got all the answers because he has all the information. His decisions thus cannot be questioned.
I feel just awful that I've been unwilling to put my 'seeing-eye dog' needing, brail using, dark glasses wearing, white cane wagging, 'blind' trust in Bush before this.
LOL.
How could anyone believe Bush to be a hypocritical, pandering, globalist, RINO, CINO, 'one (3rd) worlder'? After all, he always says such nice, patriotic things in front of the cameras. He's so sincere.
He makes great speeches. I'll grant him that.
But, where do you get off calling him a CINO? That implies that he’s referred to himself as a Conservative. ?;^)
Israel's borders are militarized, aren't they? Haven't they been? Didn't they have an increase in homicide bombings last year?
How can terrorist attacks increase independently of border security?
And when did the homicide bombings begin to subside? They slowed substantially when the IDF attacked and started killing the breeding grounds and leaders of Hamas etal. Add to that an armed citizen here and there blowing a bomber's brains out. And inciting inter-terrorist strife by destabilizing Arafat.
I just hope this administration is following this, what do they call it, "pre-emption" doctrine rather than trying to shrink from the world and close the borders to trade and immigration.
Mighty impressive for a luminary on a Mensa internet forum like FR. LOL. Let me know where your next $10000/plate policy lecture is...
You're right though, I can't recall Bush ever saying he was a conservative.
I'd have a tough time charging that kind of money for common sense. But, if you insist, I’ll even throw in a terrific meal.
How do you know terrorist bombings aren't 1% of what they would have been without the Israeli army's efforts?
You persist in this false premise that using our National Guard or any of our military is a failure, if they're not 100% successful.
We presently have 1.3 million Reserves and 458,000 National Guard. Let's use some of them.
Nope. I said there's no evidence that sending additional troops to the border will result in any net increase in security. What I'm typing is not what you're reading, I guess.
You assume it will help, and it may, but you don't consider that there might be better ways to improve border security, or general security with limited resources.
I more suspect that the new terrorist panic is being co-opted by folks with illegal immigrants as a long time pet-peeve in any case. If aliens made contact tomorrow, these same people would demand troops to the border to stem it.
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.