Are they kidding about letting the UAE have our ports?

Our Friend Sandy who is a former customs officer has this to say about letting Dubai and the UAE have access to running our ports:

I've listened to both sides of this argument since all of this came to light in the media. Unfortunately, I cannot accept this way of thinking because having been on the inside and worked at the largest port (the Port of Los Angeles) for over 12 years as a Special Agent with Customs and having seen the breaches taking place, I know the reality of what is going on there in terms of real commerce and actual security. I have testified before the Senate about this issue in July 2001 and I am very familiar with the problems. I have discussed the issues in the media and have even collaborated on a book that is coming out in the next 30 days about border security.

Unfortunately, keep in mind that while everyone would like to think that the Coast Guard, the Customs Service, and other port security personnel have the security under control, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Security means having access secured, which in fact, it is not. Case in point, two years ago, I took a film crew down to the Los Angeles Port, drove all over the place and accessed all sorts of areas. But, not once during that all day session were we ever stopped or questioned by anyone of authority. If we could do that so easily, so could a terrorist.

Next, we come to the issue of inbound shipments of goods coming into the harbor. Many Americans are under the mistaken impression that our security personnel can stop one of these inbound shipments if it was laden with a nuclear device or any other weapon of mass destruction (i.e, chemical or biological agent). Wrong again. One of the guys whom I do national security consulting work with also happens to be the same guy who ran a major exercise in the port a couple of years ago involving the Coast Guard, U.S. Navy, the FBI Special Operations Team, Customs, Port Security, etc. The purpose of the exercise was to stop the "terrorists" from making port and detonating a nuclear device. Sad to say that our team (the good guys) failed miserably. The fact of the matter is that they were not equipped nor were they remotely capable of stopping this. It was a tough lesson that the Government has failed to inform the public about because it was embarrassing to say the least. The reality is: there is no security. They do not even have a special team at the port equipped to do the job. Homeland Security will not allow them to form one even though requests to the powers that be have been made.........and turned down. There is not enough money and resources, so they say.

Then, we get to the containers themselves. With only 2-4% of of the more than 300,000 containers entered through just the Port of Los Angeles per month even being intensively examined (i.e., opening the container and pulling out every single box and item therein), stuff gets through the system. That's the reality of the situation. That means a nuclear device, biological agents and chemical agents can get through. Ah, you say, but they have devices that will detect these things. Well, I don't know if any of you caught the show on ABC News with Brian Ross a couple of years ago when they smuggled in a 15 lb. cylinder of depleted uranium into the Port of Los Angeles (the largest port in the US). But, that show demonstrated quite clearly how "good" everything works. Depleted uranium has a radioactive signature which can easily be detected. Therefore, in theory, that should have shown up when it went through. Guess what? It didn't. Then, when Brian Ross brought this to the attention of Homeland Security, rather than thank the media for pointing out the problem, Homeland Security put ABC under investigation. True story and I have a copy of the videotape of the actual airing to prove it.

I have known about the port security problems since April 1997 when I did an investigation of a major arms shipment that entered through the port undetected until somebody accidentally found it. I did a major report of my findings, which by the way, were also reported to Congress that same year. The problem is not new.

Now, we are wanting to put our ports under the administrative authority of a foreign company. I don't care which way one slices it: if we want to have true security, we must have full control of our ports from the administrative aspect down to the law enforcement side of it. Do we really want to be so blind, and I do mean blind, to entrust security of goods entering our country to foreign nationals who don't care if things meet our standards or not? I think not. That's not prudent or wise in my opinion. Because here's the bottom line, if anyone ever succeeded at blowing up any one or several of our ports, they would effectively disable our country economically in ways that 9/11 only was able to scratch the surface of. We have become such a global economy and our country has become so interdependent on the importations and exportations of goods that ANY disruption in the system would cripple us for years and would cost our economy billions in terms of lost trade, lost sales, lost jobs, and so forth.

Unfortunately, I have predicted for years that our ports and our borders our the most vulnerable. Therefore, I feel that future terrorism will emanate from these weak areas of our country. And when it does, then we'll see how quickly people understand the seriousnous of this issue. It should not be taken lightly nor ignored. I think to do so would be a grave error in judgement.

Sandy G. Nunn

President, Security & Investigative Group International

www.sig-international.net

Former Special Agent, U.S. Customs Service (1988-1999)