New Port Security (warning political)

[lets-retire]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070110/ap_on_go_co/congress_terror_11

Did anybody ever tell these people 100% security is never cost effective, but 70% is very effective at a fraction of the cost? 100% security is reserved for very high value/very destructive resources, like last line nuclear security not every port in the world.

This is at best a waste of money with very little increase in security. What would prevent a terrorist from meeting a terror-supporting captain 100 miles off the Azores and depositing enough WMD on the ship to cause seriours harm? Unless the cleared ship is going to be escorted all the way across the ocean, the inspections are non-effective and a waste of money.

 

[ladelfina]

I agree.. unfortunately both parties are in a race.. not to do the most rational thing, but to appear "tough on terror".. The whole "War on Terror" implies a zero-tolerance mentality akin to that of the "War on Drugs"..

Lately traveled from Europe to the US and back. Total "liquid screening" checkpoints both there and back prob. on the order of 8-9 (more than once per leg of journey).

1.) I hadn't packed any liquids in my carry-on, so I just said I didn't have any and WALKED RIGHT THROUGH unchallenged. While the TSA people fiddled with other people's toothpaste and hair mousse.

2.) After the TSA folks sequester your POTENTIALLY EXPLOSIVE LIQUIDS.. they just dump them all in a garbage bag 2 feet away from where everyone is standing!! :

Since they are so hot to collect this stuff, wouldn't the next logical step be to have it immediately analysed, so that if there was a suspicious substance you could match it up with the person who tried to bring it on board??

The whole thing is a farce just to make it look like "we're doing something".

 

[dumpster56]

I stopped flying.

I sure am driving my arse off though.

When americans STOP flying maybe things will change.

It is a farce, a joke. The dems are as full of it as the repubs.

Problem number 1 is the awful trip to Iraq.

Do you remember the days after 9/11 when Khatami the then president of Iran came to the states and was well making positive responses to america

But alas the axis of evil speech by the pres and look what Iran has today, A NUT, amadinijad.

Yes the world is a lot more dangerous today and even bin laden and alzwahiri are still free.

Nice going american leaders. Oh yea uh the american public elected the dummies!!

 

[BUM]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070110/ap_on_go_co/congress_terror_11

Did anybody ever tell these people 100% security is never cost effective, but 70% is very effective at a fraction of the cost?

How about 5% ? Thats what Maryland's gov and Baltimore's mayor say the inspection rate is at the Port of Baltimore. I always slow down and watch as I go by on I-95. The ports really need beefed up security. Recent backgroung checks of big rig drivers allowed in and out of the port showed a high number of felons and a considerable number of outstanding warrants.

The Port of Wilmington is very active and has 1 little guard shack at the gate. (Who and) whats in all these containers and vehicles is only an entry on manifest. Anyone checking... anyone?

 

[lets-retire]

BUM--5% is entirely too low. However in all reality inspections IN our ports are nothing more than an attempt to stop illegal imports of whatever cargo. I don't know so I'll ask. Is that the inspection rate for all inspections or just TSA?

I think the aim of the legislation is to protect the ports, which is a very complicated and expensive proposition. The country only has a few large ports. What would happen if an explosives laden ship blows up in port in NYC. Even worse a nuclear laden ship detonates in NYC's port. That is a very lucrative target without much protection. I do agree they need more protection, but there are very few options that would be effective, this legislation is not one of them.