Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Coop
I prefer my spelling -- "neglible" : )

Customs clearly has primary responsibility for container and general cargo inspection, but that responsibility can realistically be carried out only on a spot-check basis (at present, physical inspections cover about 10% of total cargo). It's my point that compliance by trustworthy operators with container content, verification, seal, and re-seal reporting is crucial, and constitutes a kind of "first-line" defense that customs must necessarily rely upon.

52 posted on 02/22/2006 10:40:03 AM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]


To: atlaw

I agree with your perspective on the layers of security. And I completely missed your typo. :-)


53 posted on 02/22/2006 10:42:12 AM PST by Coop (FR = a lotta talk, but little action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]

To: atlaw
It's my point that compliance by trustworthy operators with container content, verification, seal, and re-seal reporting is crucial, and constitutes a kind of "first-line" defense that customs must necessarily rely upon.

The assertion that the port operator has "no responsibility" for security seems confusing, since they hire and manage the workers that handle the shipments, no?

Over here in knee-jerk, it certainly does seem a bit riskier to pay a country known to produce jihadists to run selected port operations, rather than someone a bit more reliably not-jihadist.

56 posted on 02/22/2006 10:48:33 AM PST by xsrdx (Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson