Topic: ABC news
started by: Ole1kanobe
Posted by Ole1kanobe on Sep. 11 2003,10:11 pm
Did anyone see the story tonight on ABC about being able to slip depleted uranium into the county (AGAIN) from Indonesia to a port in LA?Now the government has launched an investigation towards ABC and blames the 'slip' on the fact that they did not list on the ships manifest that they had uranium.
Like the reporter from ABC news told him, we didn't list it because we do not feel that a terrorist would have.
Is our entire government structure in this country more hell-bent on laying blame and finding excuses versus getting the info and fixing the problem. To my knowledge, only 2 people in Congress have stuck up for ABC stating that they have revealed weaknesses that need to be addressed (paraphrased). We are talking about national security for god's sake!
It is kind of like the hackers that breach Microsoft's own servers, then email them to tell them how they got in so they can patch the security hole, but when the same hacker goes back a week or so later the same hole still exists, but yet they say it is the hackers fault.
What a joke.
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 11 2003,11:20 pm
Less than 2% of all containers on a container ship--tens of thousands of cubic yards--receive even a cursory inspection. Same thing for drugs--"Miami Vice" might make for good television showing speedboats or airplanes bringing it in--but that is rarely the case. Why risk an expensive speedboat or airplane--subject to easy detection and confiscation, and a boat driver or airplane pilot that might turn state's evidence and tell all he knows about the operation--when you can just ship it common carrier, have little risk of detection, NO money or informants involved, and can keep your distance? If not on a container ship, how about in the belly cargo of nearly every commercial jetliner? Hardly ANY of the belly cargo (whose revenue usually is higher than the passengers seated above for the airlines) is inspected. That's why flight crews consider the "Transportation Security Agency" and "Department of Homeland Security" such a joke. Metal detectors, profiling, frisking, taking off your shoes--it's all for show--the REAL threat is the cargo hold!I have no doubt about the ease of slipping objects by "screeners", but one thing troubles me about the story. DEPLETED uranium? That's the stuff armor-piercing artillery shells are made of, and though very dense, are hardly radioactive.
"A common misconception is that radiation is depleted uranium's primary hazard. This is not the case under most battlefield exposure scenarios. Depleted uranium is approximately 40 percent less radioactive than natural uranium. Depleted uranium emits alpha and beta particles, and gamma rays. Alpha particles, the primary radiation type produced by depleted uranium, are blocked by skin, while beta particles are blocked by the boots and battle dress utility uniform (BDUs) typically worn by service members. While gamma rays are a form of highly-penetrating energy , the amount of gamma radiation emitted by depleted uranium is very low. Thus, depleted uranium does not significantly add to the background radiation that we encounter every day."--source, gulfscientific journal
Could it be they meant "enriched" uranium--the makings of an atomic, or "dirty" bomb?
Posted by hoosier on Sep. 12 2003,12:06 am
Jim, I seen the story, they were very clear that it was depleted uranium. They had some radioactive expert say that it was harmless, but should, and would show up as giving a radioactive signal, they even showed it doing so. It showed a high signal even in a steel pipe lined with lead, they said it would give the same signal as a small nuclear device.
Posted by 1adam12 on Sep. 12 2003,10:39 am
The story is athtp://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/Primetime/sept11_uranium030910.html
They used depleted uranium because it's legal to import, and they wouldn't get in trouble. Their nuclear physicist claimed the screening devices being used would have picked it up.
Plain and simple, the container didn't get checked. Somebody's a$$ should get kicked over this, and I don't mean the reporters...
Posted by Ole1kanobe on Sep. 12 2003,10:49 am
My thoughts exactly 1adam12.
Posted by Minnow on Sep. 12 2003,11:31 am
You people are silly and worse than that you're wrong.There is no way humanly possible to check every I and cross every T, so to speak. It is absolutely impossible to make the world 100% safe and even if we could the cost would be too great. People and products would slow to the point where locked trade would kill much more people than terrorism.
It's like saying I'm mad because one person drove without a license ....so as a remedy...no one shall ever drive again. The cure is worse than the disease. Don't fall for all the 9/11 hype. It's just a group of radicals who hijacked a few planes at the same time. When we change our lives so much as too avoid the boogy man we let the terrorists win. Don't believe da hype and don't let peole use 9/11 to push their own selfish agendas. When you do..we all lose.
Posted by Ole1kanobe on Sep. 12 2003,11:47 am
You're right Minnow, there is no 100% security, but when something as potentially dangerous as uranium gets through the border, we have to do something.I worked for a company that would get product sent over from South Africa via container that came in on a ship. sometime our container would be inspected twice before it would be allowed to pass through customs, so I know for a fact that they have the ability to delay a shipment while the inspect it.
Maybe they need a new system, new equipment? The way I see it, things of this nature (uranium, depleted or not) should be on the top of the list, versus drugs. I can not think of one drug that can be used to construct a dirty bomb. I can not think of one drug that can blow up an entire building, yet that seems to be what they target most coming into the country. Maybe it is because they can use dogs to sniff the stuff out, therefore making it easier to find. I really don't know.
I guess I think that if we can send a man to the moon, we should be able to devise a system to catch radiated material coming into our borders. At least it would seem to be a priority to me.
Like the guy from the dock said, if that was a dirty bomb, it could have been detonated right in the middle of LA, killing and injuring unknown amounts of people. Is that something that we should just say 'oh well, we can't catch everything that comes into the country' to?
I'm not saying that we can make everything 100% safe, but why can't we realistically try for some better measures than we have right now?
Posted by hoosier on Sep. 12 2003,11:57 am
Minnow, I agree, the problem to me isnt that it slipped through, the problem is the government telling us everything is safe and ok, this wont happen. But you know, they did see it, they had an xray of the container, it showed what looked like a pipe bomb inside, still nothing. But you know, it reminds me of Repdans movie post, Dont piss down my back and tell me its raining. Like I said, my problem isnt so much that it made it, my problem is they told us it wouldnt. Minnow, just a question, why posting registered one time and not registered the next? Sometimes we wonder if the unregistered is really you. And Ole1, you are right, just remember where this container originated, a muslim country with ties to Bin Laden, if we cant check that, then something is wrong. But this program just goes to show you that we are in much more danger than the government wants us to believe. Not telling the truth for political purposes? Not our government. 
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 12 2003,3:34 pm
Once again, it makes no difference if it is depleted uranium or not. Much as I deplore the sensationalism of ABC news, and their attempt to sensationalize the story by using the scare word "uranium", the truth of the matter is that our borders ARE porous. Minnow is correct--everybody is over-reacting.The purpose of terrorism is NOT to kill Americans, it is to INSTILL FEAR AND TERROR. There is more to be lost by our own actions than by that of the terrorists. We have already spent untold Billions of dollars, wrecked our entire airline industry, thrown over a hundred thousand people out of work, caused a major slowdown in our transportation industry and in our economy, taken away civil rights, and terrified half the population of the country. Pretty good work for the cost of 19 zealots, I'd say.
The terrorists were COUNTING on the normal government reaction of having to be SEEN AS DOING SOMETHING. The LAST thing we need to do is to over-react. What are we going to do--inspect every shipping container and airline belly cargo? Require identification papers for passage from place to place? The U.S. Army wouldn't be up to that task.
Posted by hoosier on Sep. 12 2003,4:12 pm
Again, I think you misunderstand who we are upset with. The boarders are porous, everyone believes that. The problem is Bush and Tom Ridge telling us all that all the money we are spending is making us safe. They are telling us it is working. At least thats my point, I just want the government to be honest and tell me that they can never stop anything like this happening. Instead, they try to say that the reson they didnt notice it was because ABC didnt put it on the manifest. Come on, get real, is anyone looking to attack the U.S. in this way going to put NUCLEAR BOMB on the box and in the paper work. If you cant see the political bull sh it here you are blind.
Posted by Ole1kanobe on Sep. 12 2003,4:23 pm
I see no reason that since the Federal Government is spending untold billions of dollars on the subject already why they can not upgrade the equipment to scan for things like this. They have seen fit to put visible security measures in place in airports that honestly do little to no good except harass people that want to bring their fingernail clippers on a flight with them, now they have instituted a color code system when you get your ticket (green, yellow and red I think) where if you are issued a red ticket, you will not be able to board the plane and may be arrested at the gate. (nothing like telling someone early that they are being watched and may be arrested, duh).Instead of spending so much money on stupid deterrents, why not put the money to good use; like scanning equipment?
The 'war' is costing us more and more by the day, but yet in the REAL crucial areas, not a lot has changed.
Just seems to be more political posturing than anything.
Posted by hoosier on Sep. 12 2003,4:36 pm
Look guys, go back and watch it again if you have to. But they did xray the truck, they showed the xray they had on the truck. It clearly showed what looks like a pipe bomb, CLEARLY. If you see that, then you open the truck up and inspect it. No one expects them to open every truck or container for inspection. This is really the same as someone getting their baggage xrayed at the airport, having a bomb clearly visible, and no one doing anything about it. Again, just tell me the truth, but dont make excuses, dont act like its an aberation. My god, for where the container came from, it might as well as been post marked by Bin Laden himself.
Posted by Ole1kanobe on Sep. 12 2003,9:22 pm
I thought the xray was of the actual bag, it was the xray of the whole truck?
Posted by shaker on Sep. 12 2003,9:47 pm
The borders of the U.S. are a joke-- If you want to bring something into this country--Just walk it in. I have seen surveilance photos on a McAllen T.V. station taken by Marine heilcopters of the people crossing the border into S. Tex. Looked like a pack of rats.This is going on every night and a friend of mine on the border patrol just shakes his head and says there is no stoping them, just to damm many of them.--- by the way, the Marines don't do this any longer, two of the heilcopters crashed into each other over Falcon state park killing both crews in Jan. or Feb. Homeland security??? what a joke, like Hoosier said--Don't piss on Me and tell Me its rain.
Posted by Shon on Sep. 12 2003,10:00 pm
While I lived in Houston, Tx George W. wanted to put automated tripods (i.e. unmanned gun nest) that were hooked to motion detectors that would shoot in the direction of detected movement, but it never passed.It is true that hoards of people pass through via the Rio Grande, there really is no stopping it unless we literally wall off the entire Mexico - US border.
That's just how it is.
Posted by shaker on Sep. 12 2003,10:27 pm
Your rite Shon, All I am saying is that I am sick of these talking heads in Washington and there B.S. about homeland security when you can just walk across our borders, I also believe that if we have 87 billion to rebuild Iraq--maybe we should spend a little of that to protect our own borders. It could be done if we were not afraid of insulting the Mexico Gov. by keeping these illlegal immigrants out.
Posted by me on Sep. 13 2003,1:10 am
imagine the cash we could save on welfare
Posted by hoosier on Sep. 13 2003,8:02 am
Shaker, thats the point I have been trying to make. We all know that the borders are open, if we didnt know before, we all know now that someone could basically mail a nuclear device to our country. But politics has kept the administration from being truthful about it. Who gives a sh it about politics, we will all be safer if they would just come out and tell us the truth, That our government and homeland security cannot protect us from things like ABC news did. Asa Huchinson should get his ass kicked right out of his job along with Tom Ridge, Bush will lose his job anyway come election time. History will tell, it will show the Bush 2 administration to be the most corrupt and fiscally irresposnsible in the history of our nation. I just hope we all survive the next year under these idiots supervision. Dont even get me started on John Ashcroft, this guy has no idea what the constitution or civil liberties are all about. You throw out our civil liberties, even in a time of war, and the enemy has already won, we should just surrender. This is a guy that lost an election for governor of Missouri to a dead man, so Bush figures why not give him the most powerful job in law enforcement. I just hope we never have to put up with Bush 3 in the White House. Jeb is just as stupid as his dad and older brother.
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 13 2003,9:06 am
Hoosier--I don't know what bee got into YOUR bonnet--go back and re-read my post--we AGREE on this. The I have mentioned on the Trib. Forum and on this one for a year now how futile the efforts of the TSA and Homeland Security are--it's all eyewash. I've tried to give the perspective of what transportation industry insiders think of the TSA and Homeland Security--not only a JOKE, but a BAD ONE at that. Typical government reaction--everything for show--spend billions for "eyewash"--but ignore the real threat--with the "unintended consequence" of wrecking the transportation industry, wrecking the economy, and throwing hundreds of thousands out of work.The second part of the post explains the futility of trying to obtain absolute security in the transportation industry--as I mentioned, short of acting like Nazi's, with "control checkpoints" EVERYWHERE, we CAN'T assure absolute security. Check every cargo container on every ship coming into the U.S.? Every vehicle and aircraft? AS I said, even the U.S. Army isn't big enough for THAT task. We can't even control a 1400 mile southern border.
The terrorist have succeeded in spreading TERROR--and while it is un-PC to say so, the effects of that TERROR have paralyzed and TERRIFIED the nation--far more effective than killing 3,000 people. Government has done what governments DO--make a PRETENSE OF DOING SOMETHING. The restrictions we have put on ourselves have done the terrorist's work FOR them.
Posted by cpu_slave on Sep. 16 2003,10:20 am
The Department of Homeland Security is nothing more than window dressing to pacify the simple minded heard of sheeple, as with all the 'security screening' at airports. They do nothing to make the country safer, rather only give the illusion that it is. The only true way to have security is to give up freedom, and surprisingly enough there are too many sheeple more than willing to do so here in this country. Even with all the freedoms relinquished from the public in the PATRIOT Act, we are really no safer now then we were on Sept 10th 2001.
Posted by hoosier on Sep. 16 2003,10:47 am
Jim, the only problem I had with your post was that you seemed to say that no one else here knew that something like this could happen except maybe you. I understand that we agree, it just sounded in your first post on the subject that anyone that was surprised by this was uninformed. I was just trying to point out that we all know, just as well as you do, that something like this could happen. At least on my part, I was upset that the government wont come out and admit what we all know, that our borders are a joke. Some people might not know this and feel safe because the government tells them they are. Sorry Jim, I am sure you dont mean anything by it, but I think a lot of your posts seem to insult other posters intelligence. Like I said, I am sure that is not your intent, I dont even know if others feel the same way, but to me, thats the way it comes across sometimes. Puts me on the defensive, sorry if I misunderstood.
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 16 2003,1:40 pm
I went back to re-read the post--didn't see anything that indicated I'd found out anything new--didn't mean to convey that at all. This is a continuation of something we had on the old Trib. Forum--and I was trying to explain the disdain that most workers in the transportation industry have for the TSA and Homeland Security--pure "feel-good" eyewash--after spending Billions of dollars, we are not any safer. It is an IMPOSSIBLE task to check every bit of cargo coming into the country, and to even TRY would paralyze the economy. Imagine the delay in imports, the elimination of overnight delivery. The 60,000 baggage screeners and security agents at airports would be a drop in the bucket--you'd have to have nearly a million people to screen ALL imports. ABC proved a point--it IS possible to bring contraband into the country (DUH!)--but it was a "staged" event. Do you suppose ABC would have aired the piece if they had been CAUGHT?
Posted by Ole1kanobe on Sep. 16 2003,3:33 pm
I actually think they might have, or been required to by DoJ to 'prove' that measures taken have made a difference.As for this "check everything that comes into the country" idea, where did that come from? I never said that is what we have to do, I have not seen (just looking through the post's now) anyone else say that is what we should do either.
Why can't we realistically try for some better measures than we have right now? Maybe jumble the money around some. I think most airports have enough security people with metal detectors, let's move onto the next hole that needs to be filled. We can't get them all, but how about trying to restrict some of the larger ones?
Posted by cpu_slave on Sep. 16 2003,4:14 pm
Ole- Too many holes, not enough resources. Airport screeners are a joke, if you want an explosive on the plane you could see that it make it to air cargo (unchecked) or checked baggage (ironic since it is mostly unchecked- except when the airport workers are looking for something to 'liberate' from your luggage). Besides, who is expected to pay for all these 'security improvements'? Certainly not the airlines, as they are once again looking for a bailout. Not the people who fly, because too much of an increase in fares will make people less likely to fly (already happening). That just leaves the taxpayers, and frankly I feel I have not gotten my moneys worth for what I have already paid!The problem is that there are holes in security that have been and will continue to be exploited for decades. Illegal drugs have been getting into this country for years, even after the so-called war on drugs started. Illegal arms have continued to flow into the county, as well as illegal immigrants. Unless the borders are better protected and the shipping ports are better at screening, anything done is just for show.
Posted by Ole1kanobe on Sep. 16 2003,8:56 pm
That is exactly what I mean, airport screener's have not really helped the overall problem, so why not use those funds somewhere else where it may do more good.
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 28 2003,2:22 pm
After two years, the government has finally awakened to the fact that the CARGO compartments, not the passengers, are the most vulnerable part of air travel.From Time magazine--
| Quote |
| "Security experts say getting cargo on planes without being inspected is far too easy. Critics have been asserting for two years that the government has focused on screening passengers and their belongings and not taken the potential threats to cargo seriously. Virtually none of the cargo carried on passenger planes is ever inspected, and dedicated cargo planes--the largest aircraft in the skies-- often fly with huge loads that have never been checked. Ashcroft's attention comes at a crucial time. On Oct. 1, an industry group will present its recommendations for improving cargo security to the Transportation Security Administration." |
< http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,490594,00.html >
Pilots, airlines, and security experts have been telling the TSA ever since Sept. 11, but the TSA, and Homeland Security--are going full-throttle to meet the LAST threat. Billions of dollars spent, an entire industry decimated, hundreds of thousands of jobs lost, millions of people inconvenienced--on the wrong program! If the purpose was to decimate the economy, disrupt transportation, and make people fearful--the terrorists have won--KNOWING THEY CAN COUNT ON THE COOPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT TO OVER-REACT.
As stated in the article, the government is finally holding hearings--two years late. Watch for government over-reaction on this as well--it may change business as we know it. IF the government comes down in favor of checking all packages--the 60,000 screeners for passengers (it was 30,000 when private companies did it) will not be enough. Next day air shipments may be a thing of the past. Costs will go up to cover.
I don't feel safer because of the efforts of the TSA and Homeland Security, despite the Billions of dollars spent----do you?