See page 4 of the hearing transcript.
A second example to which I would draw your attention involved the use of ferries traveling from the United Arab Emirates to and from Iraq, ostensibly authorized only to transport passengers and their immediate possessions, not commercial goods. In a series of 661 Committee meetings, we and the British repeatedly objected to giving permission to the governments of Bahrain, Oman and Qatar to initiate their own ferry service to Iraq unless and until the illegal practices of the ferries operating from the UAE first were stopped.
We specifically took such action because several successive briefings to Committee members by the Commander of the Multinational Maritime Interception Force (MIF), operating in the Persian Gulf, confirmed with photographic evidence that commercial goods and supplies were being loaded onto ferries in the UAE in direct violation of previously agreed Committee rules governing ferry service. Other 661 Committee members severely criticized us and the British for linking our decision to block Committee approval of ferry service from other Gulf states to the ongoing problems associated with ferry service from the UAE to Iraq. However, we maintained our opposition to new ferry service and requested that steps be taken to compel the government of the UAE to exercise greater control over ferries departing from its ports to Iraq. [my emphasis]
Bahrain, Oman and Qatar. Yet, Sen. John Warner said on Meet the Press yesterday:
We as the United States are dependent on countries like the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, all of them there, to give us the support to fight this war on terrorism. We cannot mess this deal up.
[Arianna skewers the Meet the Press show here and a roundup of HuffPo bloggers on the Ports deal is here.]
Also, last week Hillary said she would introduce legislation to block foreign-owned corporations from managing our ports. Today, the legislation she and Schumer are introducing is a bit different:
Schumer and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., said they still planned to introduce legislation today that would force the administration to share its findings with Congress and give lawmakers authority to reject the sale.
Update: Via Georgia 10 at Daily Kos, Sen. Clinton did introduce a bill today to prevent foreign owned corporations from controlling our ports.
[Graphic created exclusively for TalkLeft by CL.]
Update: TalkLeft reader JLynch submitted the following:
The brouhaha over our ports has raised an issue that proponents of our failed, deficit-laden, globalization schemes have tried to hide from the American public for years. If we physically inspect each of the over nine million 40×8x8 foot containers that enter our ports annually (instead of 'pencil whipping' them) globalization slows to a crawl. When a lone terrorist can raise havoc in a city with a Coke can full of anthrax, it's exactly what should be done.
It only takes one container to conceal weapons that could wipe out an entire city. In a post 9/11 world, countries should be as self sufficient as possible and not trade with those they cannot trust---survival has to take precedence over commerce. The next Trojan horse could be an eighteen wheeler with a load of 40×8x8 foot containers (picked up at a port) heading for your city. As one sage said, `Patriots place country before commerce--traitors place commerce before country.'
I don't think physical inspection of every container is possible, but it is troubling to learn that the technological tools available, like gamma-ray scanners and radiation detector, are not sufficient.
But those anti-terrorism measures still fall far short of what is needed to ensure security, U.S. government auditors and maritime experts say. The scanning devices, for example, can check only a small fraction of the millions of containers that flow through here every year. The radiation detectors most likely would not pick up the key radioactive ingredient in a nuclear bomb, even if it were just modestly shielded. And the system that selects containers for inspection often relies upon incomplete data.
In short, even at this model port, the security set up in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, largely at the request of the U.S. government, is far from enough to address the vulnerabilities that make ports such attractive targets.
...."Port security today is still a house of cards," said Stephen Flynn, a retired Coast Guard commander. "For each of these programs, the bar is not very high and there is very little in the way of verification."
