Port Security and War on Terror - please explain

[boobiemiles]

Well atleast Bush is consistent. If he lets this deal go through, then he's on his way to having one of the worst presidency at one of the most delicate time in American history. As a country we've turned the corner and have become an Empire. Our covert attempt at modern imperalism in the name of "democracy" isn't fooling now body. And obviously this fact has made us a target. Here are a few things that I don't understand about this move:

1) the United Arab Emery is one of only three countries to recognize the Taliban as a governing body.

2) 2 of the bombers in the 9-11 incident came from the UAE.

3) 5% of all hipment entering American ports are inspected.

Yet Bush is willing to veto any bill that would block the UAE from taking over American Ports. Bush has gone as far to admit that he did not know that the UEA was going to take over operations. But still he insist on completing this deal. People in his own party are urging him to reconsider the move. I just don't get his reasoning here.

I'm suprised that moer people are not upset about this. We went to war with Iraq for the probability of WMD. The war was suppose to a war against terror. There are clear ties to terrorism here, but Bush is still willing to deal with them. He said that they have been an allie. Who is he trying to fool? An ally in what? His action have undermined american interest. It's given safe passage for an ideology to destroy American ineterst. I have a suggestion, why not have an American company secure our ports. I'm sure China wouldn't have a Japanese control their ports. Isn't there an American company that could benefit? It would keep the employment and money here. But just like Iraq qas not a war for oil, this deal isn't a going to make somebody rich. To bad it isn't us.

[SkinsHokieFan]

SHF, you can't be serious?

Smuggling a nuclear warhead into this country is of no concern to you as long as we are fighting them over there?

I don't think he CARES about protecting us, if he really did, he would take care of stuff like this. . .Oh yea, also chemical factories are another area of concern that hasn't been dealt with, for some more food for thought.

I never said it was not of any issue. However if the damn thing has already reached our ports its over. You think these guys would actually try and get the thing in our country or blow it up there? I mean honestly, once its reached our shores, what is going to happen?

You stop them over there. Like you said this is an intel war. Well lets make sure we are connected enough with the nukes to make sure nothing is proliferating (we did stop Dr. Khan in his tracks) and lets keep them so busy dodging our bullets and bombs they cannot find any

Well atleast Bush is consistent. If he lets this deal go through, then he's on his way to having one of the worst presidency at one of the most delicate time in American history. As a country we've turned the corner and have become an Empire. Our covert attempt at modern imperalism in the name of "democracy" isn't fooling now body. And obviously this fact has made us a target. Here are a few things that I don't understand about this move:

1) the United Arab Emery is one of only three countries to recognize the Taliban as a governing body.

2) 2 of the bombers in the 9-11 incident came from the UAE.

3) 5% of all hipment entering American ports are inspected.

Yet Bush is willing to veto any bill that would block the UAE from taking over American Ports. Bush has gone as far to admit that he did not know that the UEA was going to take over operations. But still he insist on completing this deal. People in his own party are urging him to reconsider the move. I just don't get his reasoning here.

I'm suprised that moer people are not upset about this. We went to war with Iraq for the probability of WMD. The war was suppose to a war against terror. There are clear ties to terrorism here, but Bush is still willing to deal with them. He said that they have been an allie. Who is he trying to fool? An ally in what? His action have undermined american interest. It's given safe passage for an ideology to destroy American ineterst. I have a suggestion, why not have an American company secure our ports. I'm sure China wouldn't have a Japanese control their ports. Isn't there an American company that could benefit? It would keep the employment and money here. But just like Iraq qas not a war for oil, this deal isn't a going to make somebody rich. To bad it isn't us.

I have no idea what you are saying mr. black republican, but there is NO AMERICAN COMPANY THAT DOES THIS

And I wish the bigotry from the left in particular would stop

[Winslowalrob]

Port security, or the lack there of isn't something new. It wasn't any better in the past, prior to Bush taking office, and if anything it's actually better. I'm not thrilled with the situation, but I can't blame it on Bush.

Manpower is the only thing that will improve port security.

Agreed, guys, if anyone REALLY wanted to use the ports, there is precious little we can do to stop it, short of having a super-inneficient shipping business. No president is to blame for the ports.

And Skins, boobie is a republican remember? I'll get my side to stop if you get your side to stop .

[DjTj]

What does Public Opinion tell us without knowledge of how it came about? NOTHING.

Unfortunately it is not "for us to decide." It is for majority to decide, and Government is very interested in marketing the War to majority.

Unfortunately the majority seems content with letting the Government decide erverything. So no, it is not up to us to decide.

We all got a chance to decide a year or so ago, and apparently we decided on Bush ... it wasn't my first choice, but I'm a pretty big fan of democracy, so I'm going to call him my President.

When I say "us" I mean we, the people of the United States. And we do get to decide - public opinion still rules this country ... and if public opinion came about through lies and deception, then that's partly our fault too - we should be fighting for more transparency and more accountability, but apparently that's not really what we want either.

I don't think the system is so horribly broken that I feel like I don't have any power though - I'm still going to vote, and I'm still going to volunteer every campaign season ... sometimes you just have to be patient.

The difference between 0% and 5% is the same as between 5% and 10%. Why do you think the 0-5% jump is more significant? Just because we are doing something/anything?

Okay, let me explain this ... I'll use my speeding example:

If the cops are stopping 0% of drivers, you can be reasonably sure that 99% of people are going to speed. If the cops start stopping 5% of drivers, that's going to drop significantly - let's say only 50% of people will speed. However, if the cops start stopping 10% of drivers, it's not going to change peoples' behavior a whole lot - maybe 40% of people will be speeding.

It's the same thing with searching people at airports and screening cargo at ports. If we don't inspect anything, we'll get a huge amount of smuggling. If we just inspect a few of the containers, smuggling will decrease significantly because the price of being caught is so high. However, if we inspect a few more containers, we won't really change smuggling all that much, because it was the first bit of inspections that really changed peoples' behavior.

Who says we have to inspect 100% of shipments? Who says we have to open each one and peer inside? Are shipments being scanned for risiduals of chemical or nuclear materials, for example?

How much have we invested to make planes more secure? How much have we invested to protect us from WMDs?

I am no expert on port security, so you should direct these questions to your Congressman.

What are we afraid of here, a plane or two going down? Or a dirty nuke coming into US? What's more important?

I look around and I see overwhelming evidence that the "War on Terror" has been mostly for show.

We're afraid of a recurring pattern of Islamist terrorism in the Middle East. I hope that's our first priority. Any strategy based on tactical objectives like individual planes or individual terrorist plots is not going to be viable in the long term. We can keep building walls all we want, but no matter what kind of wall you build, somebody somewhere will figure out a way around it. The only way to win int he long term is to convince your enemies that they don't even want to get over the wall.

I have no idea what you are saying mr. black republican, but there is NO AMERICAN COMPANY THAT DOES THIS

And I wish the bigotry from the left in particular would stop

Bigotry has always existed at both extremes of the political spectrum. Neither left-wing nor right-wing ideologues have ever been known for their tolerance.

[skinfan133]

It's the same thing with searching people at airports and screening cargo at ports. If we don't inspect anything, we'll get a huge amount of smuggling. If we just inspect a few of the containers, smuggling will decrease significantly because the price of being caught is so high. However, if we inspect a few more containers, we won't really change smuggling all that much, because it was the first bit of inspections that really changed peoples' behavior.

well we could inspect all incoming shipments, that would catch all suglers and deter everyone. but that takes taxes, so i guess it wont happen. 50% is a good number of inspection for me.

[chomerics]

If you look at my post and take it at face value, then you would understand it. It was fairly simple, and I clearly was addressing the point that the lack of port security not falling on Bush alone. Why isn't Clinton to blame? How about the past four or five administrations? It's been an ongoing problem for a long time, and to place the blame on Bush alone is just silly. We have been complacent in this country for decades, and some how it's all Bush's fualt? I'm not in love with the guy, but people look to blame long running problems on one person. You know....."Blamestorming"

I also said that I'm not thrilled with the situation. I don't understand what's so hard to grasp about that. We need to improve port security. We also need to improve border and airport security. I didn't think I needed to go into so much detail to be understood.

Your a very well versed person, so how about you document just how well the last 4 administrations including the current one, have improved the security of our ports, borders, and air ports. Prove here and now how our past presidents have done so much better then Bush at protecting the public.

Then and only then will I take your opinion as something more then "Blamestorming".

I agree that the past 5 administrations have been laxed in port security, hell I live in a zone which would be obliterated if a terrorist ever ignited a LNG cargo ship, and they pass through the docks of Boston every day. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be trying to stop them though.

I am more concerned about what has happened after 9-11, and how we haven't done anything to shore up our defenses. The previous administrations all deserve their fair share of this mess, and I do not think it is blaimstorming, but trying to squack loudly so people will listen. We are no more secure for a terrorist attack then we were on 9-11, and in fact, I think we are actually more vulnerable, because we have more people that hate us now. I am just concerned about getting our hands on all the rouge nukes out there, and trying to gather everything up before a nutjob gets their hands on a bomb that can wipe out an entire city. I personally don't think we are putting in the time, money or effort into stopping them. That's my opinion anyways. . .

[Ax]

And after all the ports in the country start screening every container that comes in, a 30 ft. leisure boat will dock at a private pier loaded with some type of WMD. Just like the drug smugglers already do it.

Any questions?

[Pete]

I'm suprised that moer people are not upset about this. We went to war with Iraq for the probability of WMD. The war was suppose to a war against terror. There are clear ties to terrorism here, but Bush is still willing to deal with them. He said that they have been an allie. Who is he trying to fool? An ally in what? His action have undermined american interest. It's given safe passage for an ideology to destroy American ineterst. I have a suggestion, why not have an American company secure our ports. I'm sure China wouldn't have a Japanese control their ports. Isn't there an American company that could benefit? It would keep the employment and money here. But just like Iraq qas not a war for oil, this deal isn't a going to make somebody rich. To bad it isn't us.

That's where the gross misconception is. More then half of the ports on the east coast are owned by other countries, and almost all on the wast coast are not owned by us either from what I have seen and read. The one consistant thing with all of those ports and the ones owned by us is, the US controls security at each and every one. Having somebody buy an American port doesn't make the security problem any worse, or any better.

It's globalization at work, and a knee jerk reaction by the people of the US purely because of who wants to buy the ports.

I agree that the past 5 administrations have been laxed in port security, hell I live in a zone which would be obliterated if a terrorist ever ignited a LNG cargo ship, and they pass through the docks of Boston every day. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be trying to stop them though.

I am more concerned about what has happened after 9-11, and how we haven't done anything to shore up our defenses. The previous administrations all deserve their fair share of this mess, and I do not think it is blaimstorming, but trying to squack loudly so people will listen. We are no more secure for a terrorist attack then we were on 9-11, and in fact, I think we are actually more vulnerable, because we have more people that hate us now. I am just concerned about getting our hands on all the rouge nukes out there, and trying to gather everything up before a nutjob gets their hands on a bomb that can wipe out an entire city. I personally don't think we are putting in the time, money or effort into stopping them. That's my opinion anyways. . .

9-11 was only the wake up call, planned during another administrations rein, and the public just needs to blaim somebody to feel better for the problems that have come from that attack. That's the root of the problem. It's far easier to just blaim the current leaders, then to look at the pattern over many years past that led up to it, realize where past leaders had gone wrong, and come up with a realistic plan to fix it over the shortest period of time possable.

Again, I'm not happy with security in general in this country. We both know it takes money and time to fix the problem. Time is a s big a key as money. I just can't place blame on Bush for not doing enough, knowing the threat was just as real prior to him taking office, and others turning the blind eye to the warning signs.

I've always been a firm believer that you should take care of your own first, and I blaim the government of the past 40 some odd years for putting the needs of other countries ahead of our own. I also blame the general public for becomming complacent with the false sense of security, and not staying on top of our leaders in the past.

If people want to crusify Bush for thing he's done during his rein, that's fine. I have a problem with nailing him to a cross for the sins of the people that proceeded him.

[Major Harris]

Good thread....I want to see the bush lovers explain this one....

why does everything have to be a bush-lover/ bush-basher debate/argument/ flame throwing thread?

is it new policy that is the reason for only 5% of containers being inspected? i'm no export on port authority, but i'd venture to say that is how it has been done under previous admins.

not everything is so black and white as to be a bush/ anti-bush issue. fact is, probably nothing is that black and white. which is why it still stuns me to see people break it down in to that. and both sides are guilty.

[Major Harris]

Have you not watched the news lately? We're letting the United Arab Emirates take over six of our ports .... I'm sure that will help.

I tend to stay away from these political discussions ... they get too heated too fast ....

But I've been a Bush supporter, but I don't agree with this decision. Not at all.

my first reaction was the same as yours....but have you actually read up on it? when i actually got the facts, my stance changed completely. read up on it, if you haven't.

[Major Harris]

Now, with that being said, you still need to inspect EVERY container that enters this country, and not only is it not being done, nothing is even in the works to make it get done. What has it been 4 years since 9-11,

and clinton had eight years, and bush i had four, and reagan had 8, and so on....

I could smuggle a nuke into this country if I had the means :doh: Yep, way to go Dubya, you are really the "tough" guy. Man, and people still don't see right through the BS, it's actually mindboggling to me.

chom, stop and think.

you make it sound so easy to smuggle a nuke in here. if it were that easy, it would have been done.

[Thiebear]

Dont think its possible to inspect every package: We need help on the other ends...

Those that don't help on the other ends should get 50% increase in inspections.

Those that do help on the other end come through with a 5% inspection probability.

Of the thousands of containers coming into U.S. seaports every day, few are opened or scanned to see what’s inside. In 2004, the total was 6 percent of all seafaring cargo.

CBP requires information on all cargo coming into the country more than 24 hours before it’s loaded onto vessels at foreign ports. That information – what’s being shipped, where it’s coming from and which company is shipping it – is used to determine the ships and containers that will be searched with X-ray scans and radiation detection equipment.

"It gives us 24 hours before that container’s actually going to be boarded to screen it and determine whether or not there’s any high-risk factor," Hinojosa said.

Additionally, about 40 percent of incoming cargo is transported by companies that participate in a government-certified security program. CBP officers go overseas to be sure the firms involved in the program have instituted higher levels of security.

Customs officials say those programs, taken together, mean 100 percent of cargo entering the country is screened in one way or another.

[chomerics]

and clinton had eight years, and bush i had four, and reagan had 8, and so on....

chom, stop and think.

you make it sound so easy to smuggle a nuke in here. if it were that easy, it would have been done.

Ummm, I am thinking, and I know it is easy to smuggle a nuke into this country, if it has not already been done. . .believe me, I don't like the thought of it, but I do understand that it is a distinct possibility that it has already happened.

There are two options to prevent it from happening from this point forward.

1. Gather up all the rouge nukes and destroy them

2. Scan all containers coming into this country with x-rays and geiger counters.

It isn't that hard to do, as we ALREADY have both the technology AND the capibility to do so. It is just getting the government to focus on this issue.

And Pete, I do not think it is a valid excuse to say that the preceeding presidents fell asleep, we all know they did. That does not give Bush the excuse to do nothing when it comes to shoring up our protection in our cities ports and containers. This should have been done right after 9-11, you can make the argument about prior presidents, and fine they didn't do any thing either, but Bush is president now, and he is the one who can do something so I get to complain when he's not securing our country or our ports. . .he is not doing enough to shore them up, that's for damn sure.

[Major Harris]

Ummm, I am thinking, and I know it is easy to smuggle a nuke into this country, if it has not already been done. . .believe me, I don't like the thought of it, but I do understand that it is a distinct possibility that it has already happened.

again, if it's so easy, and since bush has rallied the terrorists against us as you say, then why hasn't it happened? don't tell me they don't have access or the funding.

have you ever accused bush or the right of fear mongering?

[Thinking Skins]

DjTj, I think that speeding example is a horrible one. I mean, replace speeding with cheating. If I'm a teacher who stops 0% of my students from cheating, then the only thing that they have to stop them is their moral code. For some reason I don't believe that everybody is against cheating.

Now, if I were to do things to check for cheat sheets and from looking on your neighbor's paper, that would put fear inside people's mind of getting caught, so you would have much fewer people do it. And even those that do it, you'd be able to catch.

There are hundreds of ways for a student to cheat though, so I probably won't be able to efficiently check every possible way that they cheat just because I don't know about it. But if there's a kind of cheating I know about but just say, "well I'm not gonna check that" then I've just consented them to bring cheating into my classroom.

Tieing this in with your example, If I tried to stop 0% of the cheaters, then my class would be horrible. If I tried to stop 5% of the cheaters (those that look on their neighbor's paper), then I've just discouraged one type of cheating. If I try to stop 10% of the cheaters (those that look on their neighbor's paper, and those that bring cheat sheets), then I've discouraged two kinds of cheating. And if whenever I find out about a new style of cheating, I take actions to prevent it, then the effect will be less cheating in my class.

Its the same thing with speeding. THats why they are coming up with different ways to check speeding without needing the manpower (cameras to take pictures). It really discourages speeding because you know you're gonna get caught.

So why are we being innovative in the ways to prevent cheating and speeding, but not in the ways to protect our ports?

[DjTj]

DjTj, I think that speeding example is a horrible one. I mean, replace speeding with cheating. If I'm a teacher who stops 0% of my students from cheating, then the only thing that they have to stop them is their moral code. For some reason I don't believe that everybody is against cheating.

Now, if I were to do things to check for cheat sheets and from looking on your neighbor's paper, that would put fear inside people's mind of getting caught, so you would have much fewer people do it. And even those that do it, you'd be able to catch.

There are hundreds of ways for a student to cheat though, so I probably won't be able to efficiently check every possible way that they cheat just because I don't know about it. But if there's a kind of cheating I know about but just say, "well I'm not gonna check that" then I've just consented them to bring cheating into my classroom.

Tieing this in with your example, If I tried to stop 0% of the cheaters, then my class would be horrible. If I tried to stop 5% of the cheaters (those that look on their neighbor's paper), then I've just discouraged one type of cheating. If I try to stop 10% of the cheaters (those that look on their neighbor's paper, and those that bring cheat sheets), then I've discouraged two kinds of cheating. And if whenever I find out about a new style of cheating, I take actions to prevent it, then the effect will be less cheating in my class.

Its the same thing with speeding. THats why they are coming up with different ways to check speeding without needing the manpower (cameras to take pictures). It really discourages speeding because you know you're gonna get caught.

So why are we being innovative in the ways to prevent cheating and speeding, but not in the ways to protect our ports?

X-ray scanners and Geiger counters seem pretty innovative to me. I think inspecting ship containers is a lot more like speeding and random airport stops than it is like cheating. There may be many ways to cheat, but there's only one way to smuggle something into a port - you have to put it in a container on a ship.

[Midnight Judges]

why does everything have to be a bush-lover/ bush-basher debate/argument/ flame throwing thread?

is it new policy that is the reason for only 5% of containers being inspected? i'm no export on port authority, but i'd venture to say that is how it has been done under previous admins.

not everything is so black and white as to be a bush/ anti-bush issue. fact is, probably nothing is that black and white. which is why it still stuns me to see people break it down in to that. and both sides are guilty.

See, you're operating under what we like to call a "pre-9/11" mind set. 9/11 changed the entire way I think. 9/11 taught us that we need to amp up port security. It's been 5 years, all the $$$ we've wasted on the Iraq war should have gone to the ports and borders. If you hadn't completely forgotten about 9/11 you would agree with me.

Rather annoying when I use 9/11 to sound self-rightious, isn't it?

[Major Harris]

See, you're operating under what we like to call a "pre-9/11" mind set. 9/11 changed the entire way I think. 9/11 taught us that we need to amp up port security. It's been 5 years, all the $$$ we've wasted on the Iraq war should have gone to the ports and borders. If you hadn't completely forgotten about 9/11 you would agree with me.

Rather annoying when I use 9/11 to sound self-rightious, isn't it?

you assume way too much about my views, partner. and in doing so, you completely missed my point.

[AlexRS]

We all got a chance to decide a year or so ago, and apparently we decided on Bush ... it wasn't my first choice, but I'm a pretty big fan of democracy, so I'm going to call him my President.

When I say "us" I mean we, the people of the United States. And we do get to decide - public opinion still rules this country ... and if public opinion came about through lies and deception, then that's partly our fault too - we should be fighting for more transparency and more accountability, but apparently that's not really what we want either.

I agree that we cannot single anybody out - we elected a President and that's that. However, I do not think that shows "what we want."

The relationship between "Who we elect" and "what we want" really depends on that Public Opinion thing.

If Public is easily decieved and manipulated, then "who we elect" loses any connection to "what we want"

I don't think the system is so horribly broken that I feel like I don't have any power though - I'm still going to vote, and I'm still going to volunteer every campaign season ... sometimes you just have to be patient.

I do not think the system is broken. The problem is in the citizenry. Even our Founding Fathers recodnized that (even with all the rules and laws) this whole thing will work ONLY if there is Virtue in citizens.

Okay, let me explain this ... I'll use my speeding example:

If the cops are stopping 0% of drivers, you can be reasonably sure that 99% of people are going to speed. If the cops start stopping 5% of drivers, that's going to drop significantly - let's say only 50% of people will speed. However, if the cops start stopping 10% of drivers, it's not going to change peoples' behavior a whole lot - maybe 40% of people will be speeding.

It's the same thing with searching people at airports and screening cargo at ports. If we don't inspect anything, we'll get a huge amount of smuggling. If we just inspect a few of the containers, smuggling will decrease significantly because the price of being caught is so high. However, if we inspect a few more containers, we won't really change smuggling all that much, because it was the first bit of inspections that really changed peoples' behavior.

I see your point, but I do not think speeding example is applicable here. With speeding our goal is to have majority of people drive safely. With Terorrism... is it good enough to make sure majority are not terrorists?

If "It's the same thing with searching people at airports and screening cargo at ports" - then why do we scan everybody in airports?

I am no expert on port security, so you should direct these questions to your Congressman.

Excellent point!

We're afraid of a recurring pattern of Islamist terrorism in the Middle East. I hope that's our first priority. Any strategy based on tactical objectives like individual planes or individual terrorist plots is not going to be viable in the long term. We can keep building walls all we want, but no matter what kind of wall you build, somebody somewhere will figure out a way around it. The only way to win int he long term is to convince your enemies that they don't even want to get over the wall.

Completely agree with all points here. However, some points are missing:

1) We should persue long term AND short term objectives. Yes short term objectices are ineffective long erm, that does not mean we do long-term objectives only.

2) Technology to detect traces of nuclear materials will come in handy no matter what. I hope in a few years we will be able to detect ANY nuclear material from space.

[smashmowf]

why does everything have to be a bush-lover/ bush-basher debate/argument/ flame throwing thread?

is it new policy that is the reason for only 5% of containers being inspected? i'm no export on port authority, but i'd venture to say that is how it has been done under previous admins.

not everything is so black and white as to be a bush/ anti-bush issue. fact is, probably nothing is that black and white. which is why it still stuns me to see people break it down in to that. and both sides are guilty.

It depends on interpretation....my post said nothing about blaming bush....yet at least 3 people assumed that.....my post simply stated that I was interested in the view point of Bush supporters.....since there are quite a few on this board. :2cents:

[AlexRS]

It depends on interpretation....my post said nothing about blaming bush....yet at least 3 people assumed that.....my post simply stated that I was interested in the view point of Bush supporters.....since there are quite a few on this board. :2cents:

True, but you did suggest that there are two distinct and opposing camps - one supporting Bush and one against him. You do not have to be verbose to get point accross

[jbooma]

I agree with the port and UAE because it encourages trade between the two nations. The ONLY way to win this war is one through economic means, not militarily.

Now, with that being said, you still need to inspect EVERY container that enters this country, and not only is it not being done, nothing is even in the works to make it get done. What has it been 4 years since 9-11, and still I could smuggle a nuke into this country if I had the means :doh: Yep, way to go Dubya, you are really the "tough" guy. Man, and people still don't see right through the BS, it's actually mindboggling to me.

Oh boy Chom is going crazy again

Look we will never have 100% inspection on the ports, it is not possible. We do however have a good understand on where nukes are, plus we do have sensors that can detect certain things in certain locations.

I also believe each canistor is tagged with what is in it, and if anything is not correct they check those. Just because we do not inspect everything doesn't mean we do not know what is in it.

Surprise no one is talking about the good that can come from this deal, and there is a lot.

[GhostofAlvinWalton]

Some links for your reading: Skim these for info.

http://www.customs.gov/xp/cgov/import/commercial_enforcement/ctpat/criteria_importers/ctpat_importer_criteria.xml

http://www.worldshipping.org/cbprif_wscresponse.pdf

http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/12162003hearing1140/Berman1820.htm

This comes from the last link:

"CBP does not rely on any single technology or inspection process but deploys multiple technologies to support a layered inspection process. Customs relies heavily on the advanced information they receive electronically through the Automated Manifest System (AMS) to select cargo or containers for inspection. This selection is made using the Automated Targeting System (ATS) to identify high-risk shipments based on anomalies and "red flags" within AMS data.

The targeting process is performed by the Manifest Review Unit (MRU). Inspectors assigned to the MRU are responsible for analyzing risk factors by conducting pre-arrival manifest/document reviews and reviewing indicators of suspicious shipments. CBP officials state that they screen 100 percent of manifests received. They also conduct intelligence work-ups using various research tools and enforcement databases.

After a container is targeted, it can be inspected in a number of ways. If available, large-scale x-ray and gamma ray machines, such as the Vehicle and Cargo Inspection System (VACIS) are used to assist the inspectors in conducting non-intrusive inspections. When circumstances warrant, containers are sent to container examination stations where more intrusive examinations such as opening and verifying cargo can be performed.

Treasury OIG's assessment of Customs' targeting concluded that inaccurate manifest data were used to target high-risk vessel containers; some MRU's improperly implemented the targeting process; MRU targeting personnel lacked formal training and performed collateral duties reducing targeting activities; MRU effectiveness was reduced due to limited access to intelligence information; procedures for in-bond shipments did not address how to process ATS targeted shipments at in transit ports; and Customs did not have targeting efficiency measures for vessel containers to quantitatively assess the effectiveness of ATS to target potential violators.

Regarding inspections of targeted high-risk shipments, several staffing, procedural and processing issues existed that could impair Customs' ability to detect and deter contraband and weapons of mass destruction. These issues included: lack of sufficient inspection personnel to conduct examinations; inspections not always performed in accordance with established guidelines; results of examinations not always recorded accurately; examination statistics not reported consistently; and underutilization of non-intrusive inspection equipment."

.

[smashmowf]

True, but you did suggest that there are two distinct and opposing camps - one supporting Bush and one against him. You do not have to be verbose to get point accross

No, I dont agree...I only identified one group...Bush lovers....any other group that you identify is from your own interpretation..

[visionary]

No, I dont agree...I only identified one group...Bush lovers....any other group that you identify is from your own interpretation..

Sorry, but your comment was clearly designed to provoke negative responses from Bush fans...and the term "Bush lovers" in that context seems pretty clear to be a derogatory one.

Not that you don't have the right to say it...but don't whine when you get called on it.