How to Keep Osama From Coming Down the Chimney -- Port security is the new obsession.

Wall Street Journal ^ | December 1, 2004 | Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.

[OESY]

...Kerry accused the Bush administration of failing adequately to police the six million cargo containers flowing into the country each year....

This absurdity, in fact, conceals one of the great, low-budget successes of the war on terrorism. A rule was instituted overnight requiring shippers to deliver an electronic manifest of every container to U.S. Customs 24 hours before it's loaded aboard a ship in a foreign port. The info is fed through a classified, rule-based screening program to identify "high-risk" cargos, shippers or handlers, with the targeted containers undergoing X-ray or physical search before loading....

All this was done... for about $500 million compared to the $11 billion poorly spent on trying to make the airlines safer....

Bills are already bouncing around to mandate inspection of every container, requiring billions of man-hours and slowing trade to a crawl. Others want the world's 11 million shipping containers to be equipped with monitors to detect tampering, radiation, chemical or biological contamination, or the presence of stowaways. Indeed, millions of private dollars have already been invested in developing such devices and trying to sell them to the U.S. government. But shippers say the likely consequence would be an unmanageable number of false positives, bringing trade to a halt. In a typical large ship, containers are stacked seven high and 10 across, with a few inches of space in between. What happens if halfway to the U.S. an alarm goes off at the bottom of a stack?

Yet champions as diverse as Republican Senators John McCain and Susan Collins and Democrats Barbara Boxer and Joe Lieberman want a crackdown on container shipping....

And nuclear dread being what it is, even a smallish incident might prompt a nervous public to demand a cessation of trade until safety can be 100% assured....

[OESY]

We should recall that Democrats backed the Longshoremans strike three years ago. A major issue was technological innovation to track cargo containers coming to the US that would allow improved port security. Any senator, such as Schumer, who calls for 100% inspections cares little about the state of the US economy or jobs, and is recommending such crippling measures only to get elected. Weakening our economy is no way to fight terrorism.

[philman_36]

Others want the world's 11 million shipping containers to be equipped with monitors...
It seems to me that a practical and time saving solution would be to somehow fit sensors/monitors on the cranes and equipment removing the containers from the ships. The container gets scanned while it is being moved.
Just a thought...

[Mr. K]

"A rule was instituted overnight requiring shippers to deliver an electronic manifest of every container "

Oh THAT should stop them... now they have a RULE that says they gotta TELL us when they are shipping bombs... I can just see the terrorists pulling their hair out over THIS obstacle in their path...

[DoughtyOne]

While I agree with the thought behind your post, I still find it flawed.

Look, a cargo container leaves port in Europe and winds up in the United States. In the United States we assess that the container is pristine. For crying out loud, why?

We have terrorists who enter our nation, obtain driver's licenes and all manner of identification. They train for months or years before boarding an aircraft, taking control of the plane and flying it into strategic U.S. targets.

For the life of me, I can't believe that any fairly smart individual would rule out sabatoge after the ship left port destined for the United States. Now while I'm sure seals or other safequards are in place, I can't imagine anyone not understanding that if documents can be forged, so can seals. Even insiders coudl be helping.

Our ports are not safe. Trucking entering our nation isn't either. Mexico is a as corrupt as it comes, yet we trust our Mexican partners with our citizen's lives.

It only takes one screw-up, to ruin an awful lot of people's day. Why must we figure this one out after the fact, also?

[jan in Colorado]

ping

[philman_36]

With this system...

...you have to double handle the container. If something like it could be incorporated into the container bracket setup you'd kill two birds with one stone.

[Carry_Okie]

Weakening our economy is no way to fight terrorism.

Forcing importers to mitigate risks associated with their products doesn't weaken our economy. While I support this efficient idea, it isn't nearly enough, especially as regards chemical or biological terrorism in food.

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

How to Keep Osama From Coming Down the Chimney

Put bacon and ham on the fireplace instead of milk and cookies.

[Sender]

If I remember correctly, the Longshoremens' strike was also due to not being satisfied with dock pay as high as $120K a year with incredible benefits and job security.

Also I remember hearing the top brass from Longshoremen speaking at a DC protest rally for MoveOn. They were some of the most blatantly hateful, anti-American, anti-Bush speeches I've ever heard, worse even than the campaigns.

If the Longshoremen are demanding 100% container inspection, I doubt it is because they are concerned with our safety. It sounds like a way to guarantee hiring and overtime while blaming any disruption in trade on Bush.

[finnman69]

Trying to find atomic bombs in cargo containers is fruckingbackasswards.

Let's get rid of the bad guys before they get atomic bombs.

[OESY]

All steps reduce the threat. With a crafty enemy, none should be neglected -- from destroying terrorist nests abroad which disrupts their planning and executions to requiring importers/shippers to provide information that can be assessed as to risk.

For example, if Wal*Mart received, say, 10,000 containers from known suppliers in China last year -- without incident, investigative resources can be redirected to higher risk situations where there are no such satisfactory histories, less reliable documentation, or unknown product sources and shippers.

Such efforts do not eliminate the threat elsewhere, but it is the smarter approach when a government lacks unlimited funds, and not incidentally wants to protect its economy.

[Carry_Okie]

It's not just the government that measures and accounts risk. Were these importers responsible for negligence if a terrorist uses their pipeline, the insurance cost would be astronomical. Given that, the insurers would use the payments to invest in means to reduce that risk.

That's how truly free markets work.

To use government to manage those risks socializes the cost of failure on the backs of taxpayers, much in the same way that installing cheesy cockpit doors and failing to arm pilots cost the airlines far less than the cost of 911 because the FAA had given the go-ahead.

[OESY]

Leaving aside the wisdom of the government's 9/11 restitution fund which I've written created a dangerous, costly and unfair precedent, I agree with your basic premise that the task of preserving life, liberty, etc. and ensuring domestic tranquility is actually a responsibility shared by the public and private sectors.

But I can only offer my best wishes (and condolences) if three million people are vaporized and you try to sue Al-Zarqawi Cargo Co. for damages -- in the spirit of the free market.

[Carry_Okie]

But I can only offer my best wishes (and condolences) if three million people are vaporized and you try to sue Al-Zarqawi Cargo Co. for damages -- in the spirit of the free market.

You propose that importers, such as WalMart, be allowed minimal oversight if they have a good record. United Airlines and American Airlines both had just such a "good record"... until 911. As it is, FEDGOV simply dipped into your wallet and borrowed from your kids to "pay" for the mess. As evidence of the willful neglect associated with such "oversight" pilots are STILL not armed while the Feds outrageously violate civil liberties in the name of supplying harmless customers.

Nice system you've got there; but based upon the evidence, I would argue that socialized risk is hazardous to your health.

Under a proper market structure a third party would certify and audit the behavior of the importer (in a manner similar to UL). Certifiers would also carry reinsurance for failure to perform (unlike UL). Needless to say, such re-insurers would themselves pool resources to cover contingencies or the unknown.

That they are also mutually subject to audit by agreed upon third parties is what assures due diligence and adequate reserves. Pooling also makes the capital necessary for preventative investment available. By contrast, you apparently prefer Federal borrowing or printing money.

Now, lest you say, "Arthur Andersen," I remind you of the dispensations to Enron allowed by the SEC AND that under a proper market structure, not only would AA be liable to stockholders and backed by insurance but subject to criminal penalties for fraud.

AFIK, nobody from AA went to jail. Nice system you've got there. It does a great job of protecting malefactor's.

You see, I don't propose "no government" but I don't think that government belongs in the business of managing commercial risk. As it is, the US military and Customs Service operates as a significant subsidy to those who would invest abroad, masking the size of the associated risks, and exporting wealth in the process.