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 ...
2. Mark Montgomery, senior VP of the current terminal operator(P&O Ports), explained that the role of the terminal operator is essentially that of a traffic cop, coordinating the flow of ships and trucks into and out of the terminal, for subsequent container onloading and offloading by longshoremen. Mr. Montgomery also stated that 64 of the 65 current P&O terminal operators were American, and that all current personnel would keep their current jobs when Dubai World takes over.
3. Jim Angle also provided some details about the security apparatus. He explained the “security forward” concept by which U.S. officials at ports in 43 foreign countries receive manifests of everything bound for America, 24 hours before debarkation. The manifests are examined and questionable mainifest items are subsequently inspected. Mike Lovejoy and Lorne Campbell, U.S. Customs and Border protection Agents explained that 100% of arriving containers receive varying levels of inspection to include two types of x-ray screening, radiation monitoring and/or physical inspection, as intelligence and circumstances warrant. Mr. Angle also reported that terminal operators receive no information about monitoring procedures or the contents of shipping containers.
Bottom Line: The Foxnews report was (surprise) the most detailed, factual investigation into the operation of a U.S. port to date. It was refreshingly devoid of politics. The port personnel interviewed by Jim Angle (particularly the longshoreman) were of the distinct view that the Port of Baltimore is secure and that the impending change of terminal operators from P&O Ports to Dubai Ports World will NOT affect the safe, secure functioning of the port.
Note: The video of this Special Report segment was posted on Foxnews.com on Wednesday evening. My attempts to establish a freeper link were unsuccessful. You may have better luck. To locate the video, go to Foxnews.com and click “Video”. The title of the clip is “Firsthand Look”. Be advised that the video clips at Foxnews.com are rotated fairly often. If you want to see the actual segment, DON’T PROCRATINATE.
Fox's website is as bad as their newscasts of late.
Thanks for a great, and of all things, factual post.
Why is that? Because you don't agree with their findings?
Bush has ordered a 45-day reevaluation period by CFIUS. Thuis time employing high level bureaucrats instead of the original underlings who rubberstamped the proposal the first time around. Hopefully this may clear the air and not just give short term cover to the Bsuh&Company. Either way, long term changes need to happen. Tom Keane said tonight on Fox`s H&C that the American people will never go along with the DPW deal or anyother deal like it. They want American companies running the show. Right. Not "jihadists" and "islamofascists" from a Muslim nationstate who was involved in aiding the 9-11 attacks and who gave cover to Osama Bin Laden and other terrorists. The UAE is not a democarcy. Its a sheikdom run by a bunch of leaders who don't respect women and have no desire to see their people have free speech and engage in political dissent. The UAE also wants to see Israel destroyed. The UAE is not America's friend.
I was particularly heartened that the various levels of screening were alluded to and the fact that 100% of inbound cargo is screened at some level.
This is not widely known by the general public and the pols and pundits routinely can be heard saying "only 5% of cargo is checked".What a crock.
About 5% are opened and completely checked. To do 100% would probably be a physical impossibility and very expensive. Maybe we could charge a tariff for using out ports.
That's why x-ray,radiation screening,and other non-intrusive techniques are vital to the operational efficiency of the ports.
Well, in that case I guess you'll stop 5% of Al Qaeda's nukes.
Thanks for the post. Bush simply needs to explain the layers of security at ports in very general terms. This could be over if he had a fireside chat. I simply don't understand why the WH communications department is so inept.
Absolutely correct, every container contains an Al Qaeda nuke. The dirty little secret that the screaming faces won't tell you is that a much larger percentage of containers are passively checked for radioactivity.
So it would be safe to say that more than 5% of containers are checked in some manner?
How come none of you opponents of the Dubai deal have taken the next logical step: Call for the Navy & Air Force to pull out of the UAE. After all, Dubai World Ports manages those ports as well, doesn't it? And heck, even if they don't - they're in the UAE!
How can you sit there and complain about this company buying up the other foreign company that used to manage these American ports, when the American armed forces are using bases & ports that are right smack dab in UAE itself!
Where are your priorities??? How can you let our armed forces just sit there like sitting ducks, at the mercy of the UAE? :-)
No, of course not. But 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. And passive radiation detectors might work --- or they might not.
My sentiments exactly. If the UAE was the "enemy" they've been portrayed to be, it seems to me there would have been many more problems for us on THEIR turf. I don't see the UAE as busom buddies OR enemies, just imperfect business partners. And after looking at a map of the region, I give them credit for constructively engaging the the U.S., given their proximity to Iran. And I believe there may be a strategic benefit to our military basing there, given that same proximity.
Good points, Jenny. Seems odd we can trust them well enough to let them operate ports our armed forces depend on heavily, but not well enough to let them operate ports offloading tulip bulbs. It's safe to deal with them in their own country, where we have minimal oversight, but not here, where we have complete responsibility for security.
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.