NYT - Company Ties Not Always Noted in Security Push

[DoYouEverWonder]

June 19, 2006

WASHINGTON, June 18 — When the storm erupted several months ago over plans by a United Arab Emirates-based company to take over management of a half-dozen American port terminals, one voice resonated in Washington.

Stephen E. Flynn, a retired Coast Guard commander who is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, repeatedly told lawmakers and reporters that domestic ports were so vulnerable that terrorists could easily sneak a radioactive device into something as innocuous as a shipment of sneakers. And he offered a solution: a cargo inspection system in Hong Kong that scans every container, instead of the fraction now checked in the United States.

"The top priority should be working with the overseas terminal operators and putting in place a system that is being piloted in Hong Kong," Mr. Flynn told a House panel in March. "We have to view every container as a Trojan horse."

Homeland Security Department officials and lawmakers had been aware of the innovative port security approach in Hong Kong, but they had been reluctant to embrace it, convinced that screening every container at a port would be impractical. Mr. Flynn's forceful advocacy has changed that view.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/19/washington/19port.html?hp&ex=1150689600&en=28297676658aa584&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[hedda_foil]

1. And the door revolves silently on.

[DBoon]

2. Screening every container isn't practical?

but eavesdropping on tens of millions of phone calls IS?

[Journeyman]

3. Well, yeah . . .

containers can't vote. . .

[salin]

5. Or talking about the eavesdropping (illegal) on people is a security thrt

but talking about the practice of not screening the majority of shipping containers coming into the US isn't a security threat?

[radfringe]

4. maybe

after unloading the containers they should be mailed to Homeland Security?

----snip---

The dozens of envelopes containing New Yorkers' outrage at losing 40% of their security funds did go through an X-ray machine outside the government complex.

That wasn't enough. They must be scanned and processed in an offsite facility, the reporter was told.

"They have to be mailed," the spokeswoman said flatly. "We cannot accept mail from people we don't know."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/427614p-360634c.html

[Demeter]

6. Quite Frankly, I See No Conflict

Mr. Flynn is a salesman, he promotes his product. Is it a good product? Hong Kong ought to be asked.

If it does the job, then the US is foolish not to buy and install this equipment at every port.

Conflict is when you make a useless, overpriced piece of shit and get earmarked (or personally lobby or run for office to ensure sales) in a secret deal on the Federal budget for the US to buy it and people die because your product is defective. It's called self-dealing if not fraud, and it's criminal as well as a conflict. Congress take note.