Port Deal
- Thread starter MonsterMark
- Start date
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
MonsterMark said:
Gee, you make it seem like he was bribed or given a huge campaign contribution. However, the FACT is he was paid for services rendered:
Trying to pin the tail on the donkey again?
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
JohnnyBz00LS said:
Yep, looks like he was paid-off back in 2002, right? And if Clinton was in office, he wouldn't be trumpeting this deal? :lol: :bowrofl: :lol: :bowrofl: :lol:
Clinton and UAE go alot farther back than that. Time to start googling.
Hey! Where has all the outcry done gone go on this "bad" deal. Can you feel the Democrats once again grasping defeat from the jaws of victory?
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
Maybe the outcry on the Ports deal should be directed towards the false reporting by the NYT.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/pageoneplus/corrections.html
Two articles on Saturday about the management deal for six American ports and its political fallout referred incorrectly to the role to be played by Dubai Ports World. It would run some of the terminal operations; it would not own the ports or take over all operations. (Go to 1st Article, 2nd Article)
•
An article on Tuesday about concerns raised by the Coast Guard over the deal with Dubai Ports World referred incorrectly to legislation proposed by two Democratic Senators, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Robert Menendez of New Jersey. It would ban companies controlled by foreign governments — not those owned by them — from taking over operations at American ports. (The Dubai company is controlled by the emir of Dubai, part of the United Arab Emirates.) (Go to Article)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/pageoneplus/corrections.html
Two articles on Saturday about the management deal for six American ports and its political fallout referred incorrectly to the role to be played by Dubai Ports World. It would run some of the terminal operations; it would not own the ports or take over all operations. (Go to 1st Article, 2nd Article)
•
An article on Tuesday about concerns raised by the Coast Guard over the deal with Dubai Ports World referred incorrectly to legislation proposed by two Democratic Senators, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Robert Menendez of New Jersey. It would ban companies controlled by foreign governments — not those owned by them — from taking over operations at American ports. (The Dubai company is controlled by the emir of Dubai, part of the United Arab Emirates.) (Go to Article)
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
JohnnyBz00LS said:
Looks like you got me there.
gulp, gulp.Start digging and see how deep the rabbit hole actually goes.....
The Clintons of Dubai
Mar 2, 2006
by Robert Novak ( bio | archive )
WASHINGTON -- While Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was ripping President Bush's handling of American ports management, Bill Clinton was pushing for one of his favorite White House aides to be hired to defend the deal. The former president proposed to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) his onetime press secretary, Joe Lockhart, as Washington spokesman for the UAE-owned company, Dubai Ports World.
The Lockhart deal was never consummated. But the spectacle of the two Clintons going in opposite directions on the UAE port-management question exposed a Democratic fault line. Widespread public reaction against outsourcing control of the ports was seen by Sen. Clinton and other prominent Democrats as a chance to outflank the Republicans on homeland security in this year's elections. Behind the scenes, however, Democrats aligned with the Clinton family were lobbying for the UAE.
The lineup over the DP World raises questions about how Bill Clinton's free and easy political manner will impact his wife's prospective presidential campaign for 2008. Highly disciplined Hillary Clinton plays politics by the numbers, following a carefully plotted strategy. Her husband's freewheeling, intuitive style was typified when he tried to secure a well-paid assignment for his friend and valued aide, Joe Lockhart, who now heads a Washington-based media firm.
According to well-placed UAE sources, the former president made the suggestion at the very highest level of the oil-rich state. The relationship between him and the UAE is far from casual. The sheikdom has contributed to the Clinton Presidential Library, and brought Clinton to Dubai in 2002 and 2005 for highly paid speeches (reportedly at $300,000 apiece). He was there in 2003 to announce a scholarship program for American students traveling to Dubai.
Certainly, the emirs would pay the closest attention to any request from the former president. Lockhart did confer with DP World officials, but they failed to reach agreement. The UAE sources said that Lockhart's asking price was much too high.
Lockhart did not flatly deny to me that Clinton had made a pitch for him, but instead said he did not know whether the former president was involved. Lockhart said he was recommended by another Clintonite: Carol Browner, the former Environmental Protection Agency chief and now a principal in the Albright Group lobbying firm. Headed by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, the company is representing DP World. Lockhart told me "money was not the problem" as he turned down the offer.
UAE sources, contending that Lockhart priced himself out of the market, asserted there was no question but that Clinton had intervened on his behalf and added it was not possible that Lockhart had not known about his former chief's intervention. When I sought comment from Clinton, his press spokesman, Jay Carson, said: "I don't know for sure, but I don't know him to generate employment even for someone he likes and admires as much as Joe Lockhart."
While Lockhart may have been a bridge too far for DP World, the UAE has reached out to high-priced Washington lobbyists on both sides of the aisle (including Republicans Bob Dole and Vin Weber). Leading the way in putting together the port deal was Jonathan Winer, a leading Democratic lobbyist who spent 10 years as Sen. John Kerry's aide. Winer's associate at the Alston & Bird law firm supporting DP World is Kathryn Marks, who was policy director for then Sen. John Edwards. Former Democratic Rep. Tom Downey, chairman of his own lobbying firm, is also on the Dubai team.
In contrast to Democratic operatives working behind closed doors are Democratic lawmakers attacking the ports deal in the open. Speaking to the Jewish Community Relations Council at Manhattan's 92nd Street YMCA on Sunday, Sen. Clinton went beyond questions of homeland security. She called the Dubai deal "emblematic of a larger problem" of ceding "some of our fiscal sovereignty."
Does that put the Clintons on a collision course? Not exactly. Having failed privately to hook up Lockhart with DP World, the former president publicly turned on his old friends from the UAE last Friday in a speech at Auckland, New Zealand. DP World, he said, "is from UAE, where some of the money from 9/11 was laundered." If Democrats in general are divided publicly and privately on this issue, so is Bill Clinton as an individual.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
JohnnyBz00LS said:
Sorry Johnny... Pinned it!
Clinton took upwards of a million dollars from the UAE to build his library. As I remember, the library was built after Clinton left office.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11657573/
Like I said, see how far the rabbit hole goes.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Congress sent its first shot across President Bush's bow Wednesday, as the House Appropriations Committee voted 62-2 to block a controversial deal that would allow Dubai Ports World to operate some terminals at U.S. ports.
The amendment was inserted into an emergency supplemental funding bill for military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill also includes about $19 billion in disaster assistance for the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
The full House could vote on the measure as early as next week. The committee's approval was bipartisan. Democrat Rep. Jim Moran of Virginia and Republican Jim Kolbe of Arizona cast the only "no" votes.
Despite the setback, a move was under way on Capitol Hill to save the ports deal and was being shepherded by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Virginia, a source involved in the negotiations told CNN.
According to the source, Dubai Ports World would agree to several things, including security guarantees that Warner and possibly the White House afterward would pitch as being above and beyond earlier compromise plans that included divestiture and keeping ownership of "critical infrastructure" -- such as the cargo terminals at the center of the controversy -- in American hands.
"The U.S. government would have an enhanced role in overseeing the company which they don't have under current law," said the source.
What is uncertain is whether the effort is too little too late, especially following the overwhelming vote against the ports deal in the House Appropriations Committee.
"Unfortunately the situation on the Hill has deteriorated rapidly and it's not certain anything will carry the day other than complete divestment," the source said.
Congress carries out threat
The committee's move Wednesday came after a series of congressional threats to challenge Bush. Members in both legislative houses announced this week they had introduced or were planning legislation to stop the United Arab Emirates-controlled firm from taking over operations at some U.S. ports. (Watch Republicans rocking the boat over the ports deal -- 1:36)
Rep. Jerry Lewis of California, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, worked with other GOP leaders to amend the $68 billion Iraq war spending bill to include language that addresses security concerns raised by the deal.
The White House said it was concerned about the Lewis amendment because it could slow the passage of important legislation.
"We need to equip our troops," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. "It's about funding our troops to get what they need to win in Iraq and the war on terror, and to provide critical funds to rebuild the Gulf Coast, and to help those affected by last year's hurricane."
Also Wednesday, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, introduced an amendment that would bar a company from operating in a U.S. port if the company is owned by a country that recognized the Taliban's regime in Afghanistan. The UAE is one of three countries that did so, along with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. (Questions about the deal answered)
After Schumer introduced his amendment, inserted into a lobbying reform bill, Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, asked for a quorum call, which essentially snarled proceedings.
Senate Democrats expressed frustration that their amendment -- touted as similar to the one voted on by the House committee -- didn't make it to the voting stage.
"We as a caucus decided the time was right for a vote. We have bent over backwards to try and accommodate the Republican schedule," said Schumer. "The bottom line is they just don't want a vote."
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who said Frist also barred senators from trying again Thursday to vote on the measure, called the tactic "typical spin by Republican Washington."
"We want a vote on the Dubai ports scandal. Is that asking too much?" Reid asked.
Possible veto looms
Back in the House, another proposal awaits congressional attention. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-California, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, introduced a bill Tuesday that would prohibit foreign ownership of "critical infrastructure," including the handful of cargo terminals at the center of the controversy. (Watch Hunter explain how 'great Republicans' are working to kill the ports deal -- 3:27)
About 75 percent of all cargo containers entering the United States go through terminals operated by foreign companies.
DP World, a government-controlled firm, is attempting to acquire Britain-based Peninsular & Oriental operations at U.S. terminals as part of a $6.8 billion deal.
President Bush has said he would veto any legislation blocking the deal because it would send the wrong message to an Arab ally in the war on terror. It would be Bush's first veto in his five years as president.
Opponents of the takeover say that DP World should not operate terminals at U.S. ports because the UAE has had questionable ties to terrorism.
Speaking Tuesday, before the House committee vote, DP World Chairman Sultan Bin Sulayem expressed confidence that the transaction will pass congressional muster and reiterated that security is a primary concern of the company.
Under intense political pressure, DP World recently agreed to delay any takeover of P&O's American port operations until a 45-day security review can be conducted.
Bin Sulayem said Tuesday he has "no doubt" that the 45-day review will allay congressional concerns. And while Sulayem said he appreciates scrutiny from lawmakers, he also said Congress doesn't thoroughly understand the particulars of the deal, "even though the White House does." (Watch why a DP World exec believes his company can meet American security standards -- 12:10)
"I think this 45 days that we have volunteered for review is a good chance for all of us," Bin Sulayem said. "I think by the end of this they'll realize there is no fear, no worry about security. Security is a very important thing for us."
With the hope of mitigating the controversy, two top Republicans have submitted proposals to the White House.
New York Rep. Peter King, the Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has floated a proposal under which DP World would subcontract operations at the terminals to U.S. companies. DP World still would get the profits, but would have access to no security information.
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, chairwoman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, has put forth a similar proposal.
The amendment was inserted into an emergency supplemental funding bill for military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill also includes about $19 billion in disaster assistance for the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
The full House could vote on the measure as early as next week. The committee's approval was bipartisan. Democrat Rep. Jim Moran of Virginia and Republican Jim Kolbe of Arizona cast the only "no" votes.
Despite the setback, a move was under way on Capitol Hill to save the ports deal and was being shepherded by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Virginia, a source involved in the negotiations told CNN.
According to the source, Dubai Ports World would agree to several things, including security guarantees that Warner and possibly the White House afterward would pitch as being above and beyond earlier compromise plans that included divestiture and keeping ownership of "critical infrastructure" -- such as the cargo terminals at the center of the controversy -- in American hands.
"The U.S. government would have an enhanced role in overseeing the company which they don't have under current law," said the source.
What is uncertain is whether the effort is too little too late, especially following the overwhelming vote against the ports deal in the House Appropriations Committee.
"Unfortunately the situation on the Hill has deteriorated rapidly and it's not certain anything will carry the day other than complete divestment," the source said.
Congress carries out threat
The committee's move Wednesday came after a series of congressional threats to challenge Bush. Members in both legislative houses announced this week they had introduced or were planning legislation to stop the United Arab Emirates-controlled firm from taking over operations at some U.S. ports. (Watch Republicans rocking the boat over the ports deal -- 1:36)
Rep. Jerry Lewis of California, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, worked with other GOP leaders to amend the $68 billion Iraq war spending bill to include language that addresses security concerns raised by the deal.
The White House said it was concerned about the Lewis amendment because it could slow the passage of important legislation.
"We need to equip our troops," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. "It's about funding our troops to get what they need to win in Iraq and the war on terror, and to provide critical funds to rebuild the Gulf Coast, and to help those affected by last year's hurricane."
Also Wednesday, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, introduced an amendment that would bar a company from operating in a U.S. port if the company is owned by a country that recognized the Taliban's regime in Afghanistan. The UAE is one of three countries that did so, along with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. (Questions about the deal answered)
After Schumer introduced his amendment, inserted into a lobbying reform bill, Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, asked for a quorum call, which essentially snarled proceedings.
Senate Democrats expressed frustration that their amendment -- touted as similar to the one voted on by the House committee -- didn't make it to the voting stage.
"We as a caucus decided the time was right for a vote. We have bent over backwards to try and accommodate the Republican schedule," said Schumer. "The bottom line is they just don't want a vote."
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who said Frist also barred senators from trying again Thursday to vote on the measure, called the tactic "typical spin by Republican Washington."
"We want a vote on the Dubai ports scandal. Is that asking too much?" Reid asked.
Possible veto looms
Back in the House, another proposal awaits congressional attention. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-California, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, introduced a bill Tuesday that would prohibit foreign ownership of "critical infrastructure," including the handful of cargo terminals at the center of the controversy. (Watch Hunter explain how 'great Republicans' are working to kill the ports deal -- 3:27)
About 75 percent of all cargo containers entering the United States go through terminals operated by foreign companies.
DP World, a government-controlled firm, is attempting to acquire Britain-based Peninsular & Oriental operations at U.S. terminals as part of a $6.8 billion deal.
President Bush has said he would veto any legislation blocking the deal because it would send the wrong message to an Arab ally in the war on terror. It would be Bush's first veto in his five years as president.
Opponents of the takeover say that DP World should not operate terminals at U.S. ports because the UAE has had questionable ties to terrorism.
Speaking Tuesday, before the House committee vote, DP World Chairman Sultan Bin Sulayem expressed confidence that the transaction will pass congressional muster and reiterated that security is a primary concern of the company.
Under intense political pressure, DP World recently agreed to delay any takeover of P&O's American port operations until a 45-day security review can be conducted.
Bin Sulayem said Tuesday he has "no doubt" that the 45-day review will allay congressional concerns. And while Sulayem said he appreciates scrutiny from lawmakers, he also said Congress doesn't thoroughly understand the particulars of the deal, "even though the White House does." (Watch why a DP World exec believes his company can meet American security standards -- 12:10)
"I think this 45 days that we have volunteered for review is a good chance for all of us," Bin Sulayem said. "I think by the end of this they'll realize there is no fear, no worry about security. Security is a very important thing for us."
With the hope of mitigating the controversy, two top Republicans have submitted proposals to the White House.
New York Rep. Peter King, the Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has floated a proposal under which DP World would subcontract operations at the terminals to U.S. companies. DP World still would get the profits, but would have access to no security information.
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, chairwoman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, has put forth a similar proposal.
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
MonsterMark said:
OK, so Clinton is buddies w/ one of our "great Arab allies in the Global War on Terror", and they've contributed to Clinton's library after he left office. SO?? Are you pissed that Clinton has "been there, done that" before BuSh? Or are you just making a stink about the division between Bill and Hillary over this port deal?
Looks like this has been a serious problem for quite a while. How come no one looked at this before. Previous administrations bear some responsibility, too.
It looks like our ports are as porous as our borders.
AP: Study Warns of Lapses at U.S. Ports
WASHINGTON (AP) - Lapses by private port operators, shipping lines or truck drivers could allow terrorists to smuggle weapons of mass destruction into the United States, according to a government review of security at American seaports.
The $75 million, three-year study by the Homeland Security Department included inspections at a New Jersey cargo terminal involved in the dispute over a Dubai company's now-abandoned bid to take over significant operations at six major U.S. ports.
STARBUCKS CORP
NASDAQ:SBUX
Updated: 16:00 ET
35.39 +0.47
The previously undisclosed results from the study found that cargo containers can be opened secretly during shipment to add or remove items without alerting U.S. authorities, according to government documents marked ``sensitive security information'' and obtained by The Associated Press.
The study found serious lapses by private companies at foreign and American ports, aboard ships, and on trucks and trains ``that would enable unmanifested materials or weapons of mass destruction to be introduced into the supply chain.''
The study, expected to be completed this fall, used satellites and experimental monitors to trace roughly 20,000 cargo containers out of the millions arriving each year from Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Most containers are sealed with mechanical bolts that can be cut and replaced or have doors that can be removed by dismantling hinges.
The risks from smuggled weapons are especially worrisome because U.S. authorities largely decide which cargo containers to inspect based on shipping records of what is thought to be inside.
Among the study's findings:
Safety problems were not limited to overseas ports. A warehouse in Maine was graded less secure than any in Pakistan, Turkey or Brazil. ``There is a perception that U.S. facilities benefit from superior security protection measures,'' the study said. ``This mind set may contribute to a misplaced sense of confidence in American business practices.''
No records were kept of ``cursory'' inspections in Guatemala for containers filled with Starbucks Corp. coffee beans shipped to the West Coast. ``Coffee beans were accessible to anyone entering the facility,'' the study said. It found significant mistakes on manifests and other paperwork. In a statement to the AP, Starbucks said it was reviewing its security procedures.
Truck drivers in Brazil were permitted to take cargo containers home overnight and park along public streets. Trains in the U.S. stopped in rail yards that did not have fences and were in high-crime areas. A shipping industry adage reflects unease over such practices: ``A container at rest is a container at risk.''
Practices at Turkey's Port of Izmir were ``totally inadequate by U.S. standards.'' But, the study noted, ``It has been done that way for decades in Turkey.''
Containers could be opened aboard some ships during weekslong voyages to America. ``Due to the time involved in transit (and) the fact that most vessel crew members are foreigners with limited credentialing and vetting, the containers are vulnerable to intrusion during the ocean voyage,'' the study said.
Some governments will not help tighten security because they view terrorism as an American problem. The U.S. said ``certain countries,'' which were not identified, would not cooperate in its security study - ``a tangible example of the lack of urgency with which these issues are regarded.''
Security was good at two terminals in Seattle and nearby Tacoma, Wash. The operator in Seattle, SSA Marine, uses cameras and software to track visitors and workers. ``We consider ourselves playing an important role in security,'' said the company's vice president, Bob Waters.
In theory, some nuclear materials inside cargo containers can be detected with special monitors. But such devices have frustrated port officials in New Jersey because bananas, kitty litter and fire detectors - which all emit natural radiation - set off the same alarms more than 100 times every day.
The study applauded efforts to install radiation monitors overseas. ``While there is clearly value in nuclear detection at a U.S. port, that is precisely the concern - it is already on U.S. soil,'' it said.
Finding biological and chemical weapons inside cargo containers is less likely. The study said tests were ``labor intensive, time-consuming and costly to use'' and produced too many false alarms. ``No silver bullet has emerged to render terrorists incapable of introducing WMD into containers,'' it said.
Sen. Patty Murray, who advocated the study, said: ``There are huge holes in our security system that need to be filled.'' The Washington Democrat said the study ``shows us there are major vulnerabilities over who handles cargo, where it's been and whether cargo is on a manifest.''
Part of the study tested new tamper-evident locks on containers and tracking devices.
``It's important to figure out what works and what doesn't,'' said Elaine Dezenski, Homeland Security's acting assistant secretary for policy development. She said the study ``gave us a much better view of vulnerabilities.'' The U.S. is looking for weaknesses across the shipping system to learn where terrorists might strike, she said.
The study, called ``Operation Safe Commerce,'' undercuts arguments that port security in America is an exclusive province of the Coast Guard and U.S. Customs and Border Protection and is not managed by companies operating shipping terminals.
The theme was an important element in the Bush administration's forceful defense of the deal it originally approved to allow Dubai-owned DP World to handle significant operations at ports in New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
Bush and senior officials sought to assure lawmakers that safety at ports would not decline.
``I can understand people's consternation because the first thing they heard was that a foreign company would be in charge of our port security when in fact, the Coast Guard and Customs are in charge of our port security,'' Bush said Feb. 28. ``Our duty is to protect America, and we will protect America.''
DP World promised on Thursday to transfer fully to an American company its U.S. port operations it acquired when it bought London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co.
It was unclear how such a sale might occur, but the divestiture was expected to involve major operations at the six U.S. ports and affect lesser dockside activities at 16 other ports in this country.
Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., a leading critic of the Dubai deal, said anyone suggesting that port operators and shipping companies were not involved with security was ``living in La-La land.''
``You can obviously have stuff in containers that doesn't make it onto manifests, either by design or from the actions of bad actors,'' Menendez said in an AP interview Friday. ``A terminal operator is so involved in the overall security equation of ports.''
Parts of the U.S. study examined the safety of containers sent to the same cargo terminal in New Jersey that DP World would have managed jointly and operated with its Denmark-based rival, Maersk Sealand.
Hundreds of pages of study documents obtained by the AP do not list specific security lapses at the New Jersey terminal. The final two cargo containers being tracked under the study were expected to arrive there this week from the Middle East.
But the study broadly described problems in warehouses and other storage areas that raised doubts about the safety of containers brought to New Jersey's port. It cited problems with protective fences and gates, surveillance cameras and emergency plans.
The lengthy study has been beset by problems. Japan refused to allow officials to attach tracking devices to containers destined for the United States. Other tracking devices sometimes failed. Many shipping companies refused to disclose information for competitive reasons.
Some containers in the study were aboard a ship the Coast Guard held 11 miles off New Jersey's coast for security reasons in August 2004. An anonymous e-mail had claimed a container filled with tons of lemons was deliberately contaminated with a biological agent. The lemons were fumigated and burned, but no trace of poison was ever found; the containers also were destroyed.
Parts of the study could not be finished at all. U.S. officials went to Pakistan to inspect how workers in Karachi handle cargo containers. But they canceled plans for a return inspection because of an outbreak of terrorist attacks there.
It looks like our ports are as porous as our borders.
AP: Study Warns of Lapses at U.S. Ports
WASHINGTON (AP) - Lapses by private port operators, shipping lines or truck drivers could allow terrorists to smuggle weapons of mass destruction into the United States, according to a government review of security at American seaports.
The $75 million, three-year study by the Homeland Security Department included inspections at a New Jersey cargo terminal involved in the dispute over a Dubai company's now-abandoned bid to take over significant operations at six major U.S. ports.
STARBUCKS CORP
NASDAQ:SBUX
Updated: 16:00 ET
35.39 +0.47
The previously undisclosed results from the study found that cargo containers can be opened secretly during shipment to add or remove items without alerting U.S. authorities, according to government documents marked ``sensitive security information'' and obtained by The Associated Press.
The study found serious lapses by private companies at foreign and American ports, aboard ships, and on trucks and trains ``that would enable unmanifested materials or weapons of mass destruction to be introduced into the supply chain.''
The study, expected to be completed this fall, used satellites and experimental monitors to trace roughly 20,000 cargo containers out of the millions arriving each year from Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Most containers are sealed with mechanical bolts that can be cut and replaced or have doors that can be removed by dismantling hinges.
The risks from smuggled weapons are especially worrisome because U.S. authorities largely decide which cargo containers to inspect based on shipping records of what is thought to be inside.
Among the study's findings:
Safety problems were not limited to overseas ports. A warehouse in Maine was graded less secure than any in Pakistan, Turkey or Brazil. ``There is a perception that U.S. facilities benefit from superior security protection measures,'' the study said. ``This mind set may contribute to a misplaced sense of confidence in American business practices.''
No records were kept of ``cursory'' inspections in Guatemala for containers filled with Starbucks Corp. coffee beans shipped to the West Coast. ``Coffee beans were accessible to anyone entering the facility,'' the study said. It found significant mistakes on manifests and other paperwork. In a statement to the AP, Starbucks said it was reviewing its security procedures.
Truck drivers in Brazil were permitted to take cargo containers home overnight and park along public streets. Trains in the U.S. stopped in rail yards that did not have fences and were in high-crime areas. A shipping industry adage reflects unease over such practices: ``A container at rest is a container at risk.''
Practices at Turkey's Port of Izmir were ``totally inadequate by U.S. standards.'' But, the study noted, ``It has been done that way for decades in Turkey.''
Containers could be opened aboard some ships during weekslong voyages to America. ``Due to the time involved in transit (and) the fact that most vessel crew members are foreigners with limited credentialing and vetting, the containers are vulnerable to intrusion during the ocean voyage,'' the study said.
Some governments will not help tighten security because they view terrorism as an American problem. The U.S. said ``certain countries,'' which were not identified, would not cooperate in its security study - ``a tangible example of the lack of urgency with which these issues are regarded.''
Security was good at two terminals in Seattle and nearby Tacoma, Wash. The operator in Seattle, SSA Marine, uses cameras and software to track visitors and workers. ``We consider ourselves playing an important role in security,'' said the company's vice president, Bob Waters.
In theory, some nuclear materials inside cargo containers can be detected with special monitors. But such devices have frustrated port officials in New Jersey because bananas, kitty litter and fire detectors - which all emit natural radiation - set off the same alarms more than 100 times every day.
The study applauded efforts to install radiation monitors overseas. ``While there is clearly value in nuclear detection at a U.S. port, that is precisely the concern - it is already on U.S. soil,'' it said.
Finding biological and chemical weapons inside cargo containers is less likely. The study said tests were ``labor intensive, time-consuming and costly to use'' and produced too many false alarms. ``No silver bullet has emerged to render terrorists incapable of introducing WMD into containers,'' it said.
Sen. Patty Murray, who advocated the study, said: ``There are huge holes in our security system that need to be filled.'' The Washington Democrat said the study ``shows us there are major vulnerabilities over who handles cargo, where it's been and whether cargo is on a manifest.''
Part of the study tested new tamper-evident locks on containers and tracking devices.
``It's important to figure out what works and what doesn't,'' said Elaine Dezenski, Homeland Security's acting assistant secretary for policy development. She said the study ``gave us a much better view of vulnerabilities.'' The U.S. is looking for weaknesses across the shipping system to learn where terrorists might strike, she said.
The study, called ``Operation Safe Commerce,'' undercuts arguments that port security in America is an exclusive province of the Coast Guard and U.S. Customs and Border Protection and is not managed by companies operating shipping terminals.
The theme was an important element in the Bush administration's forceful defense of the deal it originally approved to allow Dubai-owned DP World to handle significant operations at ports in New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
Bush and senior officials sought to assure lawmakers that safety at ports would not decline.
``I can understand people's consternation because the first thing they heard was that a foreign company would be in charge of our port security when in fact, the Coast Guard and Customs are in charge of our port security,'' Bush said Feb. 28. ``Our duty is to protect America, and we will protect America.''
DP World promised on Thursday to transfer fully to an American company its U.S. port operations it acquired when it bought London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co.
It was unclear how such a sale might occur, but the divestiture was expected to involve major operations at the six U.S. ports and affect lesser dockside activities at 16 other ports in this country.
Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., a leading critic of the Dubai deal, said anyone suggesting that port operators and shipping companies were not involved with security was ``living in La-La land.''
``You can obviously have stuff in containers that doesn't make it onto manifests, either by design or from the actions of bad actors,'' Menendez said in an AP interview Friday. ``A terminal operator is so involved in the overall security equation of ports.''
Parts of the U.S. study examined the safety of containers sent to the same cargo terminal in New Jersey that DP World would have managed jointly and operated with its Denmark-based rival, Maersk Sealand.
Hundreds of pages of study documents obtained by the AP do not list specific security lapses at the New Jersey terminal. The final two cargo containers being tracked under the study were expected to arrive there this week from the Middle East.
But the study broadly described problems in warehouses and other storage areas that raised doubts about the safety of containers brought to New Jersey's port. It cited problems with protective fences and gates, surveillance cameras and emergency plans.
The lengthy study has been beset by problems. Japan refused to allow officials to attach tracking devices to containers destined for the United States. Other tracking devices sometimes failed. Many shipping companies refused to disclose information for competitive reasons.
Some containers in the study were aboard a ship the Coast Guard held 11 miles off New Jersey's coast for security reasons in August 2004. An anonymous e-mail had claimed a container filled with tons of lemons was deliberately contaminated with a biological agent. The lemons were fumigated and burned, but no trace of poison was ever found; the containers also were destroyed.
Parts of the study could not be finished at all. U.S. officials went to Pakistan to inspect how workers in Karachi handle cargo containers. But they canceled plans for a return inspection because of an outbreak of terrorist attacks there.
barry2952 said:
I remember it being Hillary and the Democrats who started it, and then the Republicans reacting to that.
My best guess is that the President is perceived as being weak going into the 2006 elections, in great part due to the ridiculous media polling data being pounded upon on a daily basis. So, the congress isn't worried about breaking rank and dissenting with the administration right now.
The issue was quickly misrepresented and polarized by the Hillary camp and the Democrats, hoping to seize an opportunity to look "tough on security" and out flank the Republicans. The Republicans took the easy way out and opposed the deal.
It was safer to oppose the deal than it was to explain all the complicated details to a reactionary public. And, no doubt, some of the Congressmen didn't see the big picture as well.
I don't know what the long-term ramifications will be. Economically, it won't be devastating, but there will be some. My biggest concern would be the potential loss of cooperation and intelligence information from the region.