Progressives lead on port security.
By on Apr 5th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
Progressives lead on port security.
The Sail Only if Scanned (S.O.S.) Act, sponsored by Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and James Oberstar (D-MN), would “mandate that every container bound for the United States is scanned for nuclear weapons and bomb-making materials.” It passed a House transportation committee today after being voted down by conservatives last week.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Bush Legacy
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Franken
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Krauthammer
Kyl
LGBT
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Didn't one of the trolls say that it was a "fact" that liberals are soft on defense? Funny that the most likely targets for terrorist attack, Port cities, tend to be progressive, liberal, and tend to be getting screwed in the national security partisan wars.
April 5th, 2006 at 5:29 pmWhere are the trolls now to tell us "libruls" have no ideas and are weak on defence?
April 5th, 2006 at 5:34 pmProgressives are willing to spend money on the right things, not blowing shit up in Iraq. Cons just like to spend money and blame the Dems.
April 5th, 2006 at 5:36 pmWhy did the conservatives vote it down last weak (oops I mean week)?
April 5th, 2006 at 5:37 pmYeah, Department of Homeland Security personel are too busy trying to screw teens to tend to Homeland Security.
April 5th, 2006 at 5:37 pmThere's been dispute over the issue simply due to the confusion between parties on what the S.O.S. acronym should stand for.
April 5th, 2006 at 5:38 pmLiberals naturally felt the term "Sail Only if Scanned" accurately represented their cause, but Conservatives continue to argue for "Shit On Security" Act.
Is anyone aware of what this would do to the speed of processing at the ports? Saying you have to check every container is like saying you have to deport all 10 millionish illegals, its a great idea, but not fesable in the current system.
April 5th, 2006 at 5:41 pmIt's better than the proposed Republican Act: STUPID - Standard Technology for Unauthorized Program Interface Detection
April 5th, 2006 at 5:46 pmHong Kong already scans every container that goes thru it's container ports, and that is more than 90% of the total container traffic in ALL US ports. So it is feasible.
One reason is as good as another if you just don't want to do it.
Jake
April 5th, 2006 at 5:47 pm#7 - Are you saying you would be willing to have a similar level of security at our ports as we had on September 10, 2001, in order to save time? Jake, in #9 says Hong Kong scans every container, so it is apparently doable.
April 5th, 2006 at 5:57 pmI don't know where Nadler got his cost of $6.50 per container. Perhaps that's the operating cost of staffing and upkeep for the machines. The GAO report (06-558T) estimated that the DHS plan to install over 3,000 monitors would cost $1.3 billion.The report also noted the issues of co-operation at the ports,effective seals,staffing (overseas CG personnel would have to have secure quarters in some of the locations just as State has to do)etc.
April 5th, 2006 at 6:06 pmIf the machines can be contracted for and staffing and other issues solved,the target installation is 2009.
Tastes good,less filling.
#10, #9 Well if they scan every container, and thats 90% of our containers, then were already at 90%, seeing how as the bill was to scan at the foreign ports before coming into US water, so either Jake or the congressmen are wrong.
April 5th, 2006 at 6:11 pm#12: The number likely refers to scanning a number of containers equivalent to 90% of the total containers received in U.S. ports -- not the same containers. Containers received by China will most likely be unpacked in China, the repacked with other goods and shipped elsewhere, not scanned, received, then shipped to the U.S. without the goods being off-loaded. (There, now we know who's wrong.)
April 5th, 2006 at 6:17 pm#13 to much thinking for a wensday.
April 5th, 2006 at 6:19 pmHonk Kong is able to scan all of its incoming containers. I am unsure on the total figures of the number of containers received in the US vs Hong Kong. You may be correct in that the US cannot scan all of the containers entering our ports, but we can do better then the 5% were doing now. Besides I would rather wait for my cheap plastic crap then have a major port city turned into a radioactive wasteland.
April 5th, 2006 at 6:22 pmThe estimates for the # of containers received at US ports ranges from 6 to 7 million annually.
April 5th, 2006 at 6:29 pmUnder the CSI,which is in place at 19 of the top 20 ports,including Hong Kong,"only those containers identified as potential threats will be examined by NII or phsyical inspection."
While the funding of port security has lagged,scanning 100% of containers is a waste of resources. Not evry container has an equal likelihood of carrying something harmful. In order to get a chemical,biological or nuclear weapon in a container headed to the US,there are logistical constraints. If it were that easy to do,it would have already been done.
How much has smuggling been reduced in the last 4 years?
Here is a letter i wrote to the NYTimes. my local paper. i suggest you do the same:
Seems that you missed an extremely important story today. The Democrats, local representative Nadler, and other democrats were able to pass a bill, The Sail Only if Scanned (S.O.S.) Act, that would “mandate that every container bound for the United States is scanned for nuclear weapons and bomb-making materials.†This was an extremely important story two weeks ago and I and many others would be glad to hear about this.
Another interesting fact is the democrats created the bill and republicans voted against it last week. Republicans say dems don't have any ideas on national security. This seems like a very ambitious and helpful one. I hope to see a story. Thank you
April 5th, 2006 at 6:36 pm#14. Heh heh. Fair enough.
April 5th, 2006 at 6:53 pm"Not evry container has an equal likelihood of carrying something harmful. TJM"
And 19 guys with box cutters weren't deemed likely to be 'harmful' enough to do the proper security either - and look what that kind of pre 9/11 thinking got you. I guess memos with Bin Laden and Air Planes in their titles were deemed not harmful as well?
Sorry, but reichwingers talk a good game of security as long as it involves taking away people's civil liberties, but as soon as MONEY and COMMERCE is involved - they fold like a cheap deck of cards, and you're a prime example of this.
"How much has smuggling been reduced in the last 4 years? Comment by TJM "
I don't know, but maybe you should ask all of the Meth users getting their drugs from abroad - they might tell you not much.
April 5th, 2006 at 6:57 pmMeth is primarily home grown. That is why it is hitting rural areas around the country so hard. We get our cocaine and herion from abroad. Meth is a home grown product.
April 5th, 2006 at 7:07 pm#11- Given that it is a "DHS" "plan", of course the price would be high. Republican business as usual. And there wouldn't be 3,000 scanners, we would be lucky to get 1,000. And the majority of those would never be functional, due to some sort of trauma, that was somehow missed by the manufacturers. But the no-bid contract they have releases them from being liable for any further responsibility. I am certain the Democrats would have a plan that would actually work, without all the added 'drama'. Anything is bound to be an improvement over the current system of "Fail and still be rewarded."
April 5th, 2006 at 7:08 pmOnce again Ryan,you seem unable to discuss any issue without accusing the other person of the sort of thinking endemic to yourself. Too bad that instead of assessing whether legislation like this, that expresses an ideal situation without regard for the facts on the ground,can actually accomplish the goal you wander off to 9/11. Exactly what relationship do box cutters and one way tickets have to do with TEUs? Since you have no answers you jump to another topic as if it'has anything to do with the topic at hand. Sad.
April 5th, 2006 at 8:00 pm"Exactly what relationship do box cutters and one way tickets have to do with TEUs? Since you have no answers you jump to another topic as if it’has anything to do with the topic at hand. Sad. Comment by TJM "
They both represent a pattern of blindness and ineptitude among republicans who 'assess' threats very stupidly. They didn't think the guys with the one way tickets were a big threat either. Just like they don't think inspecting ALL incoming cargo is a big threat. This isn't jumping from a topic, it's the same topic, and the same pattern of republicans being weak on security when the real measures are required. I'm not surprised you don't see that - you probably would have sided with Condi on the Bin Laden memos as well. You guys don't deserve power, you aren't competent enough to legislate.
April 5th, 2006 at 8:04 pmi'm late with my TP fix today - out in the garden, xm radio close by -
heard christy from American Progress on franken talk about this:
BREAKING: Wal-Mart Uses Its Might to Block Port Security
April 5th, 2006 at 8:07 pmWal-Mart and its Washington, D.C., lobbyist, the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), have systematically undermined America’s security by working to defeat or weaken rules to make America’s seaports and supply chains safe from terrorist attacks...
The arguement that it takes too long I find kind of amusing.. Smashing civil liberties in the name of security, great! Waiting longer for cargo, no way!
April 5th, 2006 at 8:13 pm"Meth is primarily home grown Krazny"
Not true anymore. It WAS home grown, and in fact largely supplied from super factories from California - but that production has shifted abroad in recent years. It's also true that you do have small local labs that cook it up, but much of the raw materials is still smuggled into the country. It's why Mexico buys/produces more than twice as much sudafed as it did 5 years ago, or that it needs. That ingredient goes into drug production factories in Mexico and neighboring countries.
There are two sets of meth sources, one the small independent person, and then the larger cartel supplies.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meth/
It's a more orchestrated problem than people realize unfortunately. The perception that it's 'small' and 'homegrown' is actually worked to permit the larger cartels to supply it largely unchecked. It's quite unfortunate.
April 5th, 2006 at 8:16 pm26
OK wait a sec Ryan, wasn't it only last week you were telling me that tightening border security would have little to no effect on drug traffic? You were quoting that the "Fastest Growing" method was home grown and border security would do nothing to stop drugs.
Were you wrong when you said that or wrong now?
April 5th, 2006 at 8:36 pmIn case you forgot, I went ahead and grabbed the quote for ya.
#149 in the thread
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/30/podhoretz-attacks-carroll/#comments
My Statement:
“I don’t know why we have such a terrible drug problem (Besides it’s addicitve nature), but my feelings on bringing it down involve stricter border controls and more people in prison not less. Tundraâ€
Your rebuttal on my Stricter borders proposal (Unless you don't consider ports borders:
April 5th, 2006 at 8:47 pmThe fastest growing drug problems stem from home grown meth. The borders won’t help you, so once again that’s what you get for trying to ‘think’. Leave it up to those more literate and intelligent - like humor, it’s not your gift. Comment by Ryan Neat — March 30, 2006 @ 2:30 pm
Tundra what you don't understand is that Ryan did say that, but then, when we proved him wrong using 'facts' he learned from his mistake and is now even more knowledgeable, unlike us CONservatives who don't have the capacity to learn.
So you should leave proving people wrong to others more inteligent than you, the person with the obviously inferior intellect.
April 5th, 2006 at 8:55 pm"22 Chinese nationals sneak into US inside uninspected ship cargo - could have just as easily been Al Qaeda or a nuke"
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Human_Smuggling.html
So much for the theory that port security isn't important. Republicans - weak on security.
April 5th, 2006 at 9:11 pmTundra,
First of all, look at post 149 on that page - I thought you were that ever retarded moron squishypoop. That's why I used that tone with you - something I APOLOGIZE for. You've generally been quite coherent and responsible - and I'm sorry for that mistake on my part of not treating you more reasonably. You deserved better.
Call me a flip flopper :)
I knew that meth had started in the US, and I didn't realize how much production (volume) had shifted overseas in recent years until I came across the information that frontline had done on production in Mexico. All of the information I had was on the increase in meth production facilities in the US - which is growing at an alarming rate. That however only tells part of the picture, and I'll admit that this was information that I didn't have at the point I made the comment I did to you. It however doesn't detract from the original point I was making - and I'll explaing why.
My original point that it WAS a homegrown problem and the tightening of drug imports might temporarily reduce supplies, but it most certainly would not stop it. The labs in california and elsewhere around the company will just ramp up production to compensate. So the border solution will NOT stop meth, because of its unique nature, other measures would be required for that. Since it can be produced 100% domestically (no poppies need), either the big suppliers will shift back their operations here, or small suppliers will most certainly step up to to fill the spots left by the big players.
Remember in 2001 they shut down 8000+ 'amateur' labs - so my claim about the surge of meth production in the rural heartland is true (and most certainly why Krazny believes it's such a homegrown problem as I did). No matter how you slice it, it IS a huge problem, that will not stop, and largely because it's home grown.
But what I was trying to point out in my statement that I thought was going to squishypoop - is that don't expect an improved border to solve meth. That has to be done by recognizing how it's produced, and reducing access to the materials that are its foundation components. Or perhaps by finding a 'cure' that could somehow counteract its effects - a longshot with how medical research is funded.
April 5th, 2006 at 9:52 pmOne of the great values of blog commenting on confrontational sites is the opportuntity to be wrong, to do the reading, and then be right - I mean correct. :)
If you never make mistakes, you aren't trying hard enough. Screw up, learn, grow.
Jake
April 5th, 2006 at 9:52 pmThis is going to piss Walmart Off as they are working hard to buy the republicans by passing out big Bucks! Walmart doesn't want containers checked as it cost them some pocket change. I love It!
April 5th, 2006 at 9:56 pmScan all ships, or let the UAE do it? That's your choice.
April 5th, 2006 at 11:43 pm#34- Actually, GWB gave a "no-bid" contract to China to scan for nukes in the Bahamas. He didn't give us any choice.
April 5th, 2006 at 11:51 pmRyan
That’s why I used that tone with you - something I APOLOGIZE for.
We're all good, I figured that at the time, but you knew I had to call you on it :)
I'm all for tightening the borders and ports if it will bring some of the Liberties we need back (Notice I did not say wall). People and items not in this country should be scrutinized throughly (sp too tired to look it up)
If I had to make a guess (Strictly my opinion here) I would say the Democrats backed it because they knew the Fiscaly conservative side of the house is already really cheesed off at the budget. Knowing that they knew there was no way it was going to be backed by them and would not pass ( I think it is safe to ASSUME that there would be a significant increase in cost to do that). it was a safe bet. If it passed sure, they backed it if not, it's a perfect talking point for later to show their support for security (Read: Win/Win situation, smart play).
From the Republican side (Read: true small government types) George has spent a whole lot of money in areas they already didn't like and at some point they have to say stop (Read lose/lose tough choice).
Politically the Dems pulled this one out smartly and should hope it gets plenty of press to the masses.
April 6th, 2006 at 12:41 amTundra,
Unfortunately you're being too kind to republicans in congress. If they really worried about security, they'd give up some of the pork for security. Sorry, but Walmart and the rest of the retail lobby managed to sway republicans - to the detriment of this country, and their image.
And there aren't many 'true small government' republicans in this government, congress or otherwise. The republicans have been hijacked, and you're fooling yourself if you believe that the republicans in congress represent those values. They're virtually dead in republican circles, and are only given lipservice to folks like yourself who're willing to believe it even though evidence hasn't shown this to be the case in the last 30 years.
I can point you to statistics if you like, but Republican presidents have consistently grown spending and government size in the last 30 years at a much higher rate than democratic presidents have - no matter which party controls congress. The 'small government' republican ideal is a dream that hasn't been true in a generation. It's all fantasy.
If you want for the government to spend more responsibly, vote for a democrat.
April 6th, 2006 at 2:22 am[...] Progressives lead on port security The Sail Only if Scanned (S.O.S.) Act, sponsored by Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and James Oberstar (D-MN), would mandate that every container bound for the United States is scanned for nuclear weapons and bomb-making materials.It passed a House transportation committee today after being voted down by conservatives last week. [...]
April 6th, 2006 at 3:18 am#37 As I see it, "small government" was only a PR stunt of the republicans in GOP, stunt who no longer works. You can't pretend to manage a country so great with "small government", means it federal, statal, local, or all of them. A great country needs a lot of bureaucracy and a lot of money to work. And neocons (who are not fiscally conservative, are cornering conservative republicans). The difference, as of today is only whose are your priorities (war mongering or others), and the method of payment, taxes or credits. Maybe, conservatives who believe in "small government" must move to the side of the "fiscally conservative", if it is not the same.
April 6th, 2006 at 6:55 amIt's pretty obvious to everyone now that this new brand of phony christian republican only cares about winning and not about their job. It is clear they don't want to beef up security, they just want to make sure dems don't pass anything. They are playing a game with our safety because they hate dems more than they love America. It is that simple and that is the line I'm sticking with.
How far can they go? If they had their way they would make sure we are all card carrying evangelicals or pay an "immoral" tax.
April 6th, 2006 at 10:22 am