"Screening and Inspection: CBP screens 100% of all cargo before it arrives in the U.S.- using intelligence and cutting edge technologies. CBP inspects all high-risk cargo. "
We need to correct the misconception that is repeatedly spread by the MSM, that we only inspect a fraction of containers. Note, we scan them BEFORE they get anywhere near our ports, and inspect the suspicious ones. This is why I am putting this in FrontPage news, because even many FReepers aren't aware that we do indeed scan 100% of the containers, BEFORE they get into our ports, which IS the right thing to do.
Also note the detailed discussion of the Dubai deal.
And thanks for MNJohnnie for finding this originally.
Define "Scan". According to testimony this week in congress, "scan" means looking over the manifests.
Scan means looking at paperwork, not physical inspection.
They xray about 5%, and actually put hands on less than a percent of the cargo traffic.
your post is not quite true. We dont visually inspect or scan 100% of the cargo. That would be impossible.
Screening includes checking manifests looking for bad signs.
I would like to believe you, but, it is not clear. Note in the first section 6th paragraph: "screen information on 100% of cargo" screening information is NOT SCREENING THE CONTAINERS.
From this, we can't claim "100% screening of the containers".
Regardless, this is good information.
Do you not realize their is a difference between scanning and inspecting? I guess not.
I sure wish we could find a video clip of that Stevedore guy that Jim Engle of Fox interviewed the other night. He was an ex marine, and he really told us who handles the stuff for P&O and DBW. We need to play that clip over and over again to really understand what is really happening here.
As seen in the above quote it seems you have missed a few qualifications of what they mean when they say "scan 100%" and "all cargo". They scan 100% of what they determine as High Risk which means they check manifests to determine high risk. Also it is not all scanned before it gets to US ports some if it is done AFTER it gets here.
Why the heck can't the Bush White House send someone out who can toot their own horn about this stuff from time to time (and I don't mean John Snooze, er Snow or Scott McClellan...he needs to be running a back office operation sending out presidential birthday wishes to donors as they turn 100 or something.)
Would you be so kind and correct the title, the part in paranthesis, changing the word "scanning" to "screening", to be consistent with the DHS specific statement.
Thanks very much.
I sort of knew that already.
The hard part is determining if the "1,200 boxes of Chinese laterns" is actually, and only, 1200 boxes of Chinese laterns. We check that about 5% of the time.
The "scan" is of paperwork, of the paper trail, not the physical containers.
Something that should also be made clear to the MSM idiots is the impossibility of protecting our nation from every possible attack. Fortress America is, in the end an expensive, failing strategy.
We must take the battle to terrorists, everywhere in the world.
Thanks for posting this. It's release date was February 22, and this is the first I've seen of it.
Yet again I urge people to read "The Outlaw Sea" by William Langeweische.
In it, he documents how incredibly INSECURE the international shipping trade is.
The companies that own the ships are often shadow corporations with nothing more than a P.O. Box.
The people working on the ships are often thieves and criminals hiding from prosecution. Little is done to check who these people are, where they're from, or what their real motives are.
Manifests are often fakes or forged.
No international agency with any adequate money or enforcement power polices this trade.
Anybody who thinks we can reliably scan manifests to determine what's at risk is living in a fool's paradise.
This should not have taken over two weeks to get out to the public .
The minute Hillary closed her yap, the White House should have initiated a massive information campaign.
Actually, they should have done this pre emptively.
It should be prosecutable for any elected official to highlight and describe weaknesses in our defense systems-especially in a time of war.
Any concerns they have can be dealt with through appropriate channels.
Instead the Democrats insist on detailing the specific locations of vulnerabilities-like Biden describing which Amtrak train and route was most vulnerable and Hillary doing the same with the ports and NYC subway system.
Somehow, I'm thinking, that as the container is either being loaded or offloaded, there is the potential to hit it with either X rays, or some other special electrical rays.
I'm envisioning an electronic box around the crane and its container, that can "look" inside to determine the cargo, (or detonate it), whilst the cargo is between the ground and the ship, either way.
Inspection without holding up cargo load/unload timing.
DP World will operate at the following terminals within the six United States’ ports currently operated by the United Kingdom company, P & O:
o Baltimore - 2 of 14 total
o Philadelphia - 1 of 5 (does not include the 1 cruise vessel terminal)
o Miami - 1 of 3 (does not include the 7 cruise vessel terminals)
o New Orleans - 2 of 5 (does not include the numerous chemical plant terminals up and down the Mississippi River, up to Baton Rouge)
o Houston – 4 of 12 (P&O work alongside other stevedoring* contractors at the terminals)
o Newark/Elizabeth – 1 of 4
o (Note: also in Norfolk - Involved with stevedoring activities at all 5 terminals, but not managing a specific terminal.)
*Stevedoring – provides labor, carries physical loading and unloading of cargo."
I know for a fact that the Port of Houston alone has 150 terminals and several others of these have at least 100. Why does this say "12" terminals for Houston, as an example?
What are they talking about? And why are they continuing to say "ports currently operated" by P&O?
I would like to know what the find. Have they ever found dangerous items being shipped into our counrty?