Collegiate Times

For everyone living in today?s uncertain world, safety and security is of the utmost importance. Americans are certainly no exception to this fact. Since Sept. 11, and even before, we have consistently kept national security as one of our most crucial concerns. During the 2004 presidential election, most voters cited security as their number one priority in choosing a candidate. True to the wishes of those who elected him, President Bush reiterates on an almost daily basis that national security is his main concern for America.

Whether it is the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or wiretapping suspected terrorists within U.S. borders, he and his administration have been relentless in their pursuit of better security for the nation. Some might argue that money and economic wellbeing are the motives behind all big changes and conflicts in the world, but there?s no denying that being safe will always take priority over being rich. Being an economically sound nation, comparatively speaking, is certainly a benefit for the U.S. in helping to pay for our security enforcement, yet our huge power from our position at the top of the heap makes us a constant target for terrorism.

A good example of how our large economic demands make us a target is through our seaports. America imports goods at breakneck speed, and much of what we import comes to us via the ocean. Shipping freights from countries abroad, Europe and Asia mostly, hold hundreds of large containers that supposedly only contain what is written on the side of them. A worker unloading a product from its container can only assume that if it says ?XBOX 360s? painted on the outside, he or she will only find a massive quantity of the popular gaming console inside.

But there is an ever-present threat from this form of shipping. The United States receives roughly nine million cargo containers a year, a staggering number in terms of security concerns. It has been estimated by certain experts in the field of port security that only about 5 percent of all of these containers are thoroughly inspected for threats.

Sept. 11 raised awareness of this and other glaring safety loopholes, but little has been done by way of effectively curtailing the danger. Maritime security expert Stephen E. Flynn points out that even if a terrorist was able to pull off an attack via seaports that ?the costs associated with managing the attack?s aftermath will substantially dwarf the actual destruction from the terrorist event itself.?

A frightening prospect, to say the least. But the controversey over port security most recently is not the danger itself but the baseless worry certain politicians have in the Bush administration?s desire to allow an Arab-run company to manage container inspection sites on the east coast. Those who voice protest over the president?s decision believe that allowing a company such as the Daubi one in question to be in charge of our security allows greater potential for a terrorist to infiltrate their ranks.

These dissenters are missing the point completely. The Arab firm in question will only take over management of the security terminals, not the actual inspections and handling of the goods. The security and loading and unloading of containers will still be run by the same people who?ve always done it; locally hired, Coast Guard-approved union security for the former and workers from the International Longhoreman?s Association, (a well respected organization) for the latter.

Although the deal for the takeover has been delayed for a period of time, it stands a good chance of going through. The Daubi firm will still have to abide by the rules established by the Coast Guard and the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code, among other legislation. Furthermore, and in every respect more startling, is the fact that port security, regardless of who runs it, as well as the Coast Guard itself are ill-equipped to detect the most dangerous threats in shipping like dirty bombs or even nuclear weapons.

There is a great deal of temptation on the part of politicians to lump their problems on the feet of a certain group or groups of people. It is much easier to delegate blame than to actually look for solutions to one of our most pressing security issues. It is up to the public and security experts like Flynn to hold lawmakers accountable and to remain committed to finding the best and right ways to defend ourselves and our interests as Americans.