Why did Congress kill a measure to keep felons out of U.S. ports?

[laFiera]

So how is the usa more secure? the borders are wide open, criminals seem to working ithe ports, and you expect me to believe the corrupt politicians---dems and republicans alike---are making this country safer? If the first line of defenses are not even covered, why in the world are they so eager to pass the patriot act to make us safer from terrorists?

Congress is patting itself on the back for passing the Port Security Act last Saturday. But the day before, a House-Senate conference committee stripped out a provision that would have barred serious felons from working in sensitive dock security jobs. Port security isn't just about checking the contents of cargo containers, it also means checking the background of the 400,000 workers on our docks....

 

[Termagant]

Not to mention dozens or maybe hundreds of US ports are already managed by foreign companies just like the UAE company was going to manage the ports. On the West Coast some port terminals are managed by PLA affiliated companies. Doesn't Congress sometimes love to bash the Chinese?

Another example of feel-good, phony congressional action designed to satisfy a "public outcry" as identified by pollsters.

 

[dahunan]

Why? - Because there is always so much PORK and riders in every bill that they can NEVER FOCUS on the ACTUAL BILL

Why do we allow
PORK
Lobbyists

^^ Get rid of those and we remove at least 50% of the corruption in our Govt.. These fcking clowns have been above the law way too long.. no longer for the people at all

 

[Lemon law]

You have to understand that the war on terrorism is being fought with words for political gain---having brillant slogans like no child left behind means you don't have to spend money to match the rethoric----and homeland security is the same---what what--actually spend money to make our country safer against terrorists or take practical measures that require background checks or administrative competence-------what have you been smoking?

Mere slogans will suffice---spending money better used for pork is a no no.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
You have to understand that the war on terrorism is being fought with words for political gain---having brillant slogans like no child left behind means you don't have to spend money to match the rethoric----and homeland security is the same---what what--actually spend money to make our country safer against terrorists or take practical measures that require background checks or administrative competence-------what have you been smoking?

Mere slogans will suffice---spending money better used for pork is a no no.

If you actually improve security, then the people who call Kip Hawley an idiot win. You don't want them to win do you?

 

[BoomerD]

What does having a felony conviction have to do with port security? Gawd, people have become such scared sheep lately. A felon is no more likely to cooperate with/be a terrorist than any other person...

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
What does having a felony conviction have to do with port security? Gawd, people have become such scared sheep lately. A felon is no more likely to cooperate with/be a terrorist than any other person...

That's a good point.

 

[laFiera]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
What does having a felony conviction have to do with port security? Gawd, people have become such scared sheep lately. A felon is no more likely to cooperate with/be a terrorist than any other person...

The problem is massive. The Department of Homeland Security recently investigated the ports of New York and New Jersey and found that of 9,000 truckers checked, nearly half had criminal records. They included murderers, drug dealers, arsonists and members of the deadly MS-13 gang. It concluded that these security gaps represent "vulnerabilities that could be capitalized by terrorist organizations." A dock worker who has been convicted of smuggling drugs is a potential danger. "Instead of bringing in 50 kilograms of heroin, what would stop them from bringing in five kilograms of plutonium?" asks Joseph King, a former Customs Service agent who now teaches criminal justice at New York University.

 

[blackangst1]

Who would PAY for these background checks? Our tax money? Great. Dig our deficit spending even deeper. But hey! It's for national security!

 

[Theb]

Originally posted by: laFiera

Originally posted by: BoomerD
What does having a felony conviction have to do with port security? Gawd, people have become such scared sheep lately. A felon is no more likely to cooperate with/be a terrorist than any other person...

The problem is massive. The Department of Homeland Security recently investigated the ports of New York and New Jersey and found that of 9,000 truckers checked, nearly half had criminal records. They included murderers, drug dealers, arsonists and members of the deadly MS-13 gang. It concluded that these security gaps represent "vulnerabilities that could be capitalized by terrorist organizations." A dock worker who has been convicted of smuggling drugs is a potential danger. "Instead of bringing in 50 kilograms of heroin, what would stop them from bringing in five kilograms of plutonium?" asks Joseph King, a former Customs Service agent who now teaches criminal justice at New York University.

It seems like someone who teaches criminal justice would understand the difference between smuggling heroin and smuggling plutonium.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: laFiera

Originally posted by: BoomerD
What does having a felony conviction have to do with port security? Gawd, people have become such scared sheep lately. A felon is no more likely to cooperate with/be a terrorist than any other person...

The problem is massive. The Department of Homeland Security recently investigated the ports of New York and New Jersey and found that of 9,000 truckers checked, nearly half had criminal records. They included murderers, drug dealers, arsonists and members of the deadly MS-13 gang. It concluded that these security gaps represent "vulnerabilities that could be capitalized by terrorist organizations." A dock worker who has been convicted of smuggling drugs is a potential danger. "Instead of bringing in 50 kilograms of heroin, what would stop them from bringing in five kilograms of plutonium?" asks Joseph King, a former Customs Service agent who now teaches criminal justice at New York University.

The amount of Ex-cons involved in that workforce might have more to do with marginalization than to do with Illegal activities. Although it makes some sense that criminal activity(smuggling) would attract cons as well.

What's really need is a more extensive Inspection of Cargo though. Even if smugglers are working at the Ports, they still are at the mercy of their goods being left undiscovered. IOW, worrying about Felons woking at ports is mostly a distraction from the real issue, that is the lack of Security through Inspections.

 

[bctbct]

We could spend billions inspecting everthing that comes through the ports, I mean hands on open the box and have a dog sniff each piece.

We're still going to have a border to the south with no customs inspection. Technically is it smuggling if you walk across without being stopped???

 

[shurato]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Who would PAY for these background checks? Our tax money? Great. Dig our deficit spending even deeper. But hey! It's for national security!

We would of have had plenty of money to secure the homeland if we weren't involved in the waste known as the Iraq war.