Posted on 03/04/2006 12:31:35 PM PST by FairOpinion
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.
it's what they had at the RNC convention. You had to walk through radiation detectors to get into the convention. Similar.
I am trying to be for real. I will not defend, or deny the 5% number. It is not documented in this article that we are discussing. This article simply states that ALL suspicious cargo, identified through 100% screening; is inspected. Some people get confused by the semantics. The fact that there has not been another attack on America indicates that something is working. I will eat my words if we are attacked again through a seaport.
And here is some interesting info from a company, who may or may not be supplying some equipment for screening, but they have some neat technology.
http://www.hissusa.com/cyber_port_system.html
"2. CYBER RAD: Radiation Detection System: This proprietary system uses a series of four spreader bars, mounted on the arms of the port cranes. Every container is automatically screened for radiation. The screening data is sent via a wireless link to the port command and control center for disposition. "
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.)
Apparently it's a bit like defining what "is" is.
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.
While this is all good and well, CBP has not earned rave reviews for their performance on the Texas border. Maybe the Longshoremen can not be bribed and intimidated like their land-locked peers. CBP is THE most corrupt organization on the Texas border.
Blah, blah, blah, blah. Numbers, figures, series... There's nothing there. It's all specific nonsense, specifically, with the intent to provide a (perhaps false) sense of security/comfort.
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.
And this is an official statement by the DHS.
The "scan" is of paperwork, of the paper trail, not the physical containers.
"I will eat my words if we are attacked again through a seaport."
Nice to see that you're proactive.
What we all need to realized, that the Dem and MSM statements referring to "only 5% are inspected" strongly imply or even say, that we aren't doing anything at all about the 95%, that 95% of the containers come into the US, in a way that we are totally ignorant about them.
The DHS press release goes into the specific actions taken, demonstrating that ALL containers are screened, look at the "Layered Defense" section. Then the high risk ones get further screening and inspection and all cargo entering the US is screened for radiation.
There is a big difference in what is actually being done, quite a lot and the impression the Dems are trying to create, that we are only randomly inspecting 5%.
There is a big difference.
Yes, this is an official DHS statement. I was attempting to point out to SwordofTruth that the 5% thing is a media soundbite. While this DHS statement may be timed to current events -DPW-, it does have enough information about procedures to help sane folks form an opinion. The black helo crowd will always have another conspiracy.....
FairOpinion said: But I also read, that all containers to go past radiation detectors, so they are screened for radiation.
A few days ago, here on FR, I read that only one port has one radiation detection machine that works. No, they are not all screened for radiation. Many have been screaming for years for more port protection.
Here's some from a 2 minute google search.
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=106597
A General Accounting Office (GAO) report released this week contradicts claims by Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge that U.S. ports are in "full compliance" with anti-terrorism standards scheduled to go into effect today. The report alleges that about 7 percent of all U.S. ports and more than half of U.S. ships have not even been reviewed, and that the process for reviewing some other ports is flawed. The big problem, however, is money: the LA Times reports, "experts said yesterday that inadequate government funding has slowed efforts" to secure the nation's ports. As in many areas of homeland security, President Bush has underfunded his own security mandates for U.S. ports, putting Americans at risk. American Progress's P.J. Crowley writes that as a result of underfunding, "a lot of the security improvements the Bush administration is touting exist on paper and not yet on the pier."
ADMINISTRATION'S RESOURCE DIVISION 'SELF-DEFEATING': Stephen Flynn, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a retired U.S. Coast Guard Commander, says the administration's lack of funding for port security is part of a "self-defeating and dangerous division of resources between the U.S. military and homeland security." Referring to the billions the administration has spent overseas, Flynn points out, "For the cost of two F-22 fighter jets and three days of combat in Iraq…the nation's ports could be secured against terror."
http://hutchison.senate.gov/ccinfrastructure.htm
Port Security
The final question on this issue concerned port security. I wrote, "Ninety-five percent of our nation's overseas trade is carried via ship. Yet only two percent of inbound containers are checked by U.S. Customs at our nation's ports. How do you think we should protect our ports?" This issue is critical for all coastal points of entry in the nation, especially here in Texas where numerous ports line the Gulf of Mexico. The Port of Houston takes in more foreign tonnage than any other port in America and handles half of the petrochemical capacity in the country. Your survey responses indicate that you too are concerned about the security of our ports. Fifty-two percent of respondents felt that ships entering U.S. ports should be subject to as much scrutiny as airplanes coming into U.S. airports, while 32 percent felt that cargo aboard ships should be inspected at random.
__________________
Securing our ports: Failing miserably
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ^ | Saturday, March 5, 2005 |
Two years and several million dollars later, U.S. ports are not any more secure than when Homeland Security started doling out government grants, the department's inspector general concludes.
The IG's 70-page report offers a snapshot of a bloated federal bureaucracy at its worst.
Instead of focusing on the nation's 10 primary ports in California and New York -- which handle about 80 percent of all international shipping -- about $517 million went out in scattershot grants.
I agreed with you, and just intended to further strenthen your statement, by pointing out that this article is not just some journalist making statements, but it's an official DHS statement.
In the meantime, I looked and here is what the Dems claim -- that only 5% are screened, the rest come in, without being even checked for radiation. The DHS statement refutes that completely.
Here is an excerpt from NANCY PELOSI's statement:
"The biggest threat to our security is the fissile materials that are still out there, the nuclear materials of the post-Soviet Union world. They were formally weapons of the Soviet Union and now they are not secured adequately and available to terrorists.
"The single biggest threat is those weapons in a container coming into our country. I really can't understand why this Administration has refused to do what is necessary to protect our ports from that threat. And, it's not only our ports; when these containers come from overseas to our country, they are unloaded onto a truck, onto a train, drive right through your city, your town, perhaps past your home. So the danger goes well beyond our ports.
"Here at home, only 6 percent of containers entering our ports are screened. Yet at two of the busiest terminals in the world - in Hong Kong - 100 percent of containers are screened. If Hong Kong terminals can do it, why can't America?
"That is why Democrats are proposing that 100 percent of the containers that comes to our ports are screened, at the port of origin - long before they reach our shores and our waterways."
http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=6466
What Pelosi is stating is NOT true and it's misleading. What she proposes, it's already being done.
THAT was my point, that the Dems statements need to be refusted with the truth -- which was your point as well.
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.
"Here's some from a 2 minute google search. "
====
That's what happens, when you don't pay enough attention.
1. http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=106597
This is from a leftist, Bush hating site, and it's from back a while ago, talking about Ridge.
2. http://hutchison.senate.gov/ccinfrastructure.htm
Hutchinson seems to unfortunaHS.tely be parroting the MSM lies.
3. NO link to your Pittsburgh Tribune-Review article.
====
Bottom line: I guess you rather believe leftist Bush hating sites and the MSM, than the official statements of the DHS.
Sen. Kay Hutchison
The final question on this issue concerned port security. I wrote, "Ninety-five percent of our nation's overseas trade is carried via ship. Yet only two percent of inbound containers are checked by U.S. Customs at our nation's ports.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.