Posted on 05/20/2006 6:08:33 AM PDT by radar101
Under intense pressure from shipping companies concerned about costly delays, the Coast Guard is tipping off some large commercial ships about security searches that had been a surprise, high-ranking Coast Guard officials have said.
The searches began after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as part of a major revamping of the Coast Guard and its new anti-terrorism mission. But shipping companies say the surprise boardings at sea cause unnecessary delays, costing up to $40,000 an hour. “We're trying to facilitate commerce and keep the port secure – and sometimes the two conflict,” said Capt. Paul Wiedenhoeft, who is in charge of the port complex at Los Angeles and Long Beach. “When possible, we're trying to give shippers as much notice as we can.”
The practice has caused considerable confusion and debate within the Coast Guard. Commanders in some ports acknowledged in interviews that they provided up to 24-hour notice. Others said the practice undermined the inspections.
Even within the command at some ports, there was disagreement about the best approach. The port captain in San Francisco, Capt. William Uberti, said shippers were “not supposed to have a clue” about possible random boardings. Yet his security chief said the command gave shippers notice.
Coast Guard officials in San Diego could not be reached for comment.
A typical search involves checking the crew and cargo manifests against those filed with the ports. Sea marshals check identification cards against the faces of crew members. They sometimes arrive with bomb-sniffing dogs and inspect with handheld radiation detectors. Depending on the circumstances, a review can last a half-hour or a half-day, officials said.
Capt. Frank Sturm, a top policy official at headquarters in Washington, said the national policy on the boardings was fluid, depending on the presence of reasonable suspicions. Sturm said he could not provide details of how many ships were given notice, in which ports or under what circumstances.
Another Coast Guard official in Washington, D.C. Cmdr. Paul Thorne, said the practice had not compromised security.
“Threats are being adeptly managed by local captains of the port,” Thorne said.
But critics worry that the practice could undermine an important component of the layered security effort to keep terrorists out of the nation's longest border, more than 96,000 miles of coastline.
“The purpose of the inspections is for the Coast Guard to send a message to all these ships that they might be boarded at any time, basically to make sure there's no mischief on board,” said Stephen Flynn, a former Coast Guard commander who is now a fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations. “If you say, 'Heads up, when you get close to port in two days we're going to board you,' that sort of defeats the purpose of the boarding.”
A spokesman for the Coast Guard in New York agreed, saying nearly 1,000 boats a year were boarded for security reasons in the ports of New York and New Jersey and that all the inspections were a surprise.
“If they're from a foreign port and trying to get into the United States, they should know they might get boarded – without warning,” said the spokesman, Mike Lutz.
Since the middle of last year, the Coast Guard nationally has boarded more than 16,000 vessels and found numerous violations, most related to safety or the crew status. In 144 cases, the vessels were temporarily held back from anchoring in American ports, the Coast Guard said, without giving more details.
Shippers consider the inspections a nuisance because they delay the delivery of goods, and suggest that advance notice allows them to make more efficient use of the inspection time. Critics, however, suggest that the notice also gives a heads-up to potential terrorists, who could use the time to conceal evidence, create diversions or possibly even find a way off a ship.
Complaints about gaping holes in security have continued since Sept. 11, 2001. People who work at the water's edge and outside experts say a larger concern is with an overburdened Coast Guard charged with protecting 361 ports, with more than 60,000 ports of call a year, while trying to overhaul its culture and focus.
For the Coast Guard, “it's been culture change with a capital C,” said M.R. Dinsmore, executive director of the Port of Seattle. “They're trying mightily to adapt, but they don't have the resources.”
Michael Mitre, director of port security in Los Angeles for the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, said he had taken the Coast Guard around this sprawling port complex, the entry point for 40 percent of the nation's container cargo, to show how truckers with just a driver's license can come and go at will, how few are checked for identification and how so much cargo escapes minimal scrutiny.
“There is systemwide noncompliance with the new security laws,” Mitre said.
Four years after Congress upgraded its mission under the Homeland Security Department, the Coast Guard has strained to meet its obligations. It has had to rely on outsiders to fill crucial gaps on land, including recruiting volunteers from its auxiliary for routine shoreline surveillance and contractors to oversee federally mandated security plans by ports and their tenants.
Trying to avoid a failure of imagination in its uncharted new role, the agency has even called in screenwriters from Hollywood to help sketch terrorism situations. “The biggest change is that the Coast Guard has gone from being an organization that ran when the bell went off to being a cop on the beat at all times,” said Capt. Peter Neffenger, who recently gave up command of the port here for a position in Washington and who consulted with the screenwriters.
“I worry about our vulnerability,” Neffenger said. “I worry about having blinders on for certain scenarios.”
With an active-duty force nationwide of less than 40,000, the Coast Guard is understaffed and struggling to balance its traditional mission with its greatly enhanced domestic security role, a government audit found last year.
Still, the Coast Guard says it has made significant progress. Admirals say their budget has increased by more than 50 percent over the past five years, to $8 billion, and they have added more than 4,000 uniformed personnel. They have gone from an agency that committed less than 2 percent of its assets to port security to one where domestic protection is the top priority.
Until the terror attacks, “I didn't know a ship was coming in until I looked out the window and saw it,” said Capt. Stephen Metruck, a veteran of West Coast operations who is based in Seattle.
The Coast Guard now requires self-reporting by big shipping operators 96 hours before entry along with electronic tracking. But it is largely an honor system, and terrorists are not going to report their contents or identity, numerous experts have noted.
In Puget Sound, as in many ports and harbors, the Coast Guard depends heavily on volunteers with binoculars to help an active-duty force of 158 people that has to guard 3,500 square miles, including the largest ferry system in the nation.
At the ports in Long Beach and Los Angeles, the Coast Guard hands out leaflets at marinas, urging people to report suspicious behavior.
“There's no way we could patrol this whole thing ourselves,” a spokesman for the Coast Guard here, Lt. Tony Migliorini, said. “A lot of this, we're making it up as we go along. We're creating it from scratch.”
Or... How much per hour will is cost to have the basin look like Chernobyl for the next 300-500 years.
Tonk, the San Diego Union is picking on your service.
My thoughts exactly.
I'd say the element of surprise is a bit lacking when you give 24hrs notice that the surprise is coming.
A few years ago there was a big stink sent up by Mexico because Port officials where checking Mexicans at the Ports-of-Entry for seat belts and Arizona Automobile insurance. The practice stopped. Now, if you are so unfortunate as to get into an accident with a car bearing Mexican license plates you most likely will need your uninsured motorist coverage on your own insurance and the other driver will be cited and released never to be seen until you appear in a civil court having to prove that you are not at fault and that you don't have to pay his disability payments for the rest of his life.
http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=6401
GUESS WHERE THOSE ORDERS CAME FROM?!
I don't think Lt. Migliorini is a very effective spokesman for our Coast Guard.
The Coast Guard's highest ranking members have been saying what a great job the Coast Guard is doing in adequately "screening" every container that comes into the United States, but here we have a lieutenant who says that the Coast Guard isn't even making adequate patrols.
The question I have is who made the decision on the advance notice? It sounds like something Washington could have come up with - the interests on big business (and its lobbyists) are more important than national security.
I suppose the delays caused by customs (in both airports and seaports) cost us money as well. If they don't like the delays, they can always manufacture the goods in the USA.
Recently Koizumi (sp?) of Japan said that if these delays continue they will send their ships to Canada instead of California.
Sometimes the ships are held at sea for days. Or they are held in port and not allowed to be unloaded for days.
Don't know what the solution is, just stating the problems for the shippers.
Recently Koizumi (sp?) of Japan said that if these delays continue they will send their ships to Canada instead of California.
Sometimes the ships are held at sea for days. Or they are held in port and not allowed to be unloaded for days.
Don't know what the solution is, just stating the problems for the shippers.
FYI Ping
I wonder why they bother searching at all then.
I guess if they've got the BIG ONE they might not know it anyway.
I bet that the UAE port authority doesn't do things like this....
I am not sure about the $40,000 an hour cost. I could see a lost spot on the pier costing that but not just on hour at sea costing $40k.
I may have missed it but what are they are saying that the crew is more efficient during the inspection when given this notice?
There is more to this. What would they do with the advance notice? Turn around and go back? Or maybe they would lift a 40' container off and dump it. I am guessing that would be kind of a hassle and if (and that is a big if) it was done there would be evidence of them doing that.
What are they looking for anyway? Just checking paperwork. I mean how much can you search in 1 hour. I am guessing it is a paperwork check with some random containers' seals being inspected.
I am probably in the minority, as ususal, but I don't think these "tip offs" are of any consequense. I just don't see them being able to do anything to conceal anything they have that would not already be concealed enough to get through an inspection of this type.
Why not just drive whatever you got over the border? Less hassle more scenery. Hell of a lot more fun than being on a boat for a few weeks at a time.
SEAL THE BORDERS NOW! Talk about it later!
Your post was SO GOOD, I had to re-post it!!!
Note the use of "shipping companies" who complain. As there are damned few American shipping companies, who are they? COSCO (Chinese)?
That's what I don't get. Aren't these ships delayed for a while before unloading? Up to days, I've heard. It's not like a 80,000t container ship just finds an empty parking spot like at the mall.
"No excuse. This is sick. Court Martial, sentence them...and if they're still alive after their time served, then dishonorably discharge them!!"
YEA! So what if America ceases to be an economic powerhouse, at least we'll be SAFE!!
That's the interesting question. Could the crew just run away?
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.