Port security: U.S. fails to meet deadline for scanning of cargo containers

[bruno]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...y.html?hpid=z1

Got to hand it to the Fed bureaucrats- 1/2 % of containers get scanned for Nuke content before shipping ; and the DHS reports that 99% of containers are scanned on arrival and there are no cases of finding Nuke materials in US ports so there is no threat. But would they find anything?:

"The DHS says monitors scan 99 percent of the containers for radiation after they arrive at U.S. ports. But experts say the monitors at U.S. ports are not sophisticated enough to detect nuclear devices or highly enriched uranium, which emit low levels of radiation."

Meanwhile every 3 year old and 93 year old and everyone in between practically has to strip down to their skivvies, gets scanned, X-rayed, patted down and generally hassled just trying to get on the shuttle flight to NYC from Logan. (Make sure that you don't take more than 3oz of shampoo aboard that flight- you might be a security risk!)

[tpg]

There is a lot I would like to say on this subject however I am bound by ….

With that stated, I am ashamed at the progress we have made in this area and do not be fooled…this is a serious risk issue.

[goaliedad]

Originally Posted by bruno

...

Meanwhile every 3 year old and 93 year old and everyone in between practically has to strip down to their skivvies, gets scanned, X-rayed, patted down and generally hassled just trying to get on the shuttle flight to NYC from Logan. (Make sure that you don't take more than 3oz of shampoo aboard that flight- you might be a security risk!)

Haven't I seen that movie...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qLie2058dI

[bruno]

There are real security threats out there as you can see from this article in today's Post- but I have serious doubts about the DHS being up to the task. Sewing needles in in flight sandwiches are bad enough- but the inability to field a screening system for nukes at the ports are a long way beyond that for all of us.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...y.html?hpid=z3

[goaliedad]

Originally Posted by bruno

There are real security threats out there as you can see from this article in today's Post- but I have serious doubts about the DHS being up to the task. Sewing needles in in flight sandwiches are bad enough- but the inability to field a screening system for nukes at the ports are a long way beyond that for all of us.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...y.html?hpid=z3

Or should you say unwillingness.

Heaven forbid we actually enact a TAX on incoming ships to pay the cost ($16 Billion per the article) to pay for the security we need to continue bringing in the best the world has to offer in a SAFE manner.

NOOOO! We are addicted to CHEAP imported junk that distracts us from the fact that we can't make anything ourselves anymore. Our politicians' decisions are a reflection of our own weakness.

Free trade doesn't shouldn't come at the price of endangering our country. Trust me, many of our trading partners pass on the cost of checking imported goods to the importers.

[LineInTheSand]

Interesting stuff. I don't think the U.S. could reasonably scan 100% of cargo.... ever. There are a few things to consider. First, security of the port of origin for cargo. The security surrounding port facilities overseas also counts for something.


Now, you want to board every ship pulling into the U.S.? You'll have to dramatically increase the size of CBP and the Coast Guard. And that is at a time the Coast Guard is shrinking. So... that's not going to happen.

If you want to hold up shipping.... you'll cost the U.S. economy billions.


What you'd really appreciate is the interview with San Diego's deputy port director (or something like that) from Customs.

[LineInTheSand]

But after saying all of that, I have VERY FEW positive things to say about DHS as an organization.

[goaliedad]

Originally Posted by LineInTheSand

Interesting stuff. I don't think the U.S. could reasonably scan 100% of cargo.... ever. There are a few things to consider. First, security of the port of origin for cargo. The security surrounding port facilities overseas also counts for something.


Now, you want to board every ship pulling into the U.S.? You'll have to dramatically increase the size of CBP and the Coast Guard. And that is at a time the Coast Guard is shrinking. So... that's not going to happen.

If you want to hold up shipping.... you'll cost the U.S. economy billions.


What you'd really appreciate is the interview with San Diego's deputy port director (or something like that) from Customs.

The scanning should happen any time during loading (which is actually preferable and IIRC Customs does some work at foreign ports already). Plenty of ways to certify cargo. It really should be a multi-national effort with customs from all countries present at ports world-wide. If you don't play along, your ship docks nowhere. Simple enough.

That should handle the cargo.

As to pickups at sea, well that is entirely another issue... I agree, this would be difficult to police.

[2009KPer]

Originally Posted by goaliedad

The scanning should happen any time during loading (which is actually preferable and IIRC Customs does some work at foreign ports already). Plenty of ways to certify cargo. It really should be a multi-national effort with customs from all countries present at ports world-wide. If you don't play along, your ship docks nowhere. Simple enough.

That should handle the cargo.

As to pickups at sea, well that is entirely another issue... I agree, this would be difficult to police.

I think you're really underestimating the amount of cargo and vessels that flow through our ports - and it's not all containerized. One-hundred percent screening would require an enormous amount of resources to pull off efficiently.

DHS can't even handle the proper implmentation of the TWIC program which was started years ago. I doubt they could take this on without severely slowing things down to a crawl and wasting gobs of money.

[bruno]

100% screening of anything is not realistic and with the sheer volume of material coming thru US ports is probably un-doable.

But developing a statistically significant and capable system of scanning isn't unachievable- the technology clearly exists to field a scanning system that has the sensitivity to detect the highest risk items. But it is clear as even the most partisan of Senators from both sides of the aisle have expressed- the DHS is unwilling to actually make concrete steps to rapidly field a capable system. Bureaucracy at it's finest. If you have never actually worked in Washington, the tactic of appearing to do something without actually spending much time doing so is a finely honed skill of Government agencies and they practice it when they are pointed at a project that they haven't initiated themselves. In this case- the DHS seems to me to have decided that this is not something they support , so they don't actively and aggressively pursue a meaningful implementation.