What!? No tag line about this somehow being Bush's fault?


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
May 20, 2006
Some Ships Get Coast Guard Tip Before Searches
By TIMOTHY EGAN
NY Times

LONG BEACH, Calif. — 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,
according to high-ranking Coast Guard officials.

The searches began after the Sept. 11 attacks as part of a major revamping
of the Coast Guard and its new antiterrorism 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 E. Wiedenhoeft, who is in
charge of the port complex here 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 J. Uberti,
said shippers and carriers were "not supposed to have a clue" about
possible random boardings. Yet his security chief said the command gave
companies notice.

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 hand-held 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, based on what a ship reported it was
carrying and the makeup of its crew. Captain Sturm said he could not
provide details of how many ships were given notice, in which ports or
under what circumstances.

"In some cases," he said, "it would not surprise me to tell a captain of a
ship in advance."

Another Coast Guard official in Washington, Cmdr. Paul D. Thorne, said the
practice had not compromised security."Threats are being adeptly managed
by local captains of the port," Commander Thorne said.

But critics worry that the practice may undermine an important component
of the layered security effort to keep terrorists out of the nation's
longest border, its 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 E. 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 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 and carriers consider the inspections a nuisance because they
delay the delivery of goods, and suggest that the 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 9/11 and
heightened when a Dubai company planned to run terminal operations at five
ports. 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," Mr. 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 V. 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," Captain Neffenger said. "I worry about
having blinders on for certain scenarios."

With a total active-duty force nationwide barely larger than the New York
City Police Department, 39,000 people, 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 last 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 V. 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 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."

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...
What!? No tag line about this somehow being Bush's fault?


It's so obvious, it doesn't need to be pointed out any more.