Security fears about infiltration by terrorists(BushCo "Portgate" concerns

[sabra]

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060222-122115-8912r.htm

Security fears about infiltration by terrorists

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Several Bush-administration security officials expressed concerns yesterday that terrorists could infiltrate seaports through a United Arab Emirates company that is vying to manage six U.S. ports.

Intelligence and security officials opposed to the deal with Dubai Ports World said ports are vulnerable to the entry of terrorists or illicit weapons because of the large number of containers that enter U.S. territory, regardless of who manages them.

...
One long-term worry is that al Qaeda terrorists will attempt to smuggle a nuclear device into the United States through a port via a shipping container.

...

"You have to be concerned about a firm from that part of the world managing the ports," this official said. "They are more vulnerable to compromise and penetration by terrorists, even if they are just managing the port."

[rodeodance]

1. so why didn't these officials speak up before now?

[Mithras61]

2. This is what I've been saying since all the noise about DPW started...

It isn't about who runs the administrative side, it's about the fact that port security is almost non-existant in most ports. There aren't enough Customs people, DHS people, security guards, etc., to inspect more than 5% of what comes in through the sea ports, and our security people are relying on relationships with shippers to provide even the modicum of security we have. Several reports on security have cited the almost total lack of port security as an issue that could easily let terrorists bring in whatever they want. I'm jumping on the DPW bandwagon because it's highlighting the issue, not because I think DPW is any worse (or better) than British P&O is.

[fasttense]

3. Well than you are not up-to-date on the numerous terrorists support

and assistance the UAE has provided. There is a big difference between the UAE and Briton, and it has nothing to do with race. Check out BCCI, ObL and other terrorists supported by the UAE. True if we didn't have such inadequate port security this would not be as hot an issue as it is now. But even with the best and most sophisticated port security in the world, I would not encourage UAE to control operations in our busiest ports.

[The Stranger]

5. But of course it is about race.

Can you post a link to a terrorist act committed by the persons in question?

[Mithras61]

6. IF there was adequate security...

then the risks could be mitigated. Since there is only inadequate (at best!) security, the risks are unacceptable. UAE is playing both sides of the fence (and has been for quite a long time). That does not make Dubai Ports World a terrorist linked company, and doesn't mean that they can't/won't provide adequate security outside the USA, but it DOES mean that we have to provide security that assumes that there are inherent risks in dealing with a government owned entity when the owning government plays both sides of the fence. It's like dealing with the Saudis and assuming that they don't sponsor the Wahhabbi schools...

[CJCRANE]

4. Maybe that's part of the plan...

It's not beyond Bushco to set up another LIHOP/MIHOP to their advantage.

[stepnw1f]

7. Once Again, Bush Plays Politics with Our National Security

We all see what your number priority is George. Too late!

[lumpy]

8. Bush didn't know about port deal

until it was a done deal. The Incompetent-in -Charge simply isn't doing his job running 'his' adminstration; his adminstration is running him and the country into the ground. Saddam was a better administrator than Bush; at least he kept his minions in control. The balance of power in the US has shifted away from an incompetent Congress and an incompetent Prez and is the hands of incompetent bureaucrats and incompetent military leadership all going in opposite directions.