PDA

View Full Version : Investigators find gaps in port security plan


lily
05-27-2008, 09:11 PM
How Bush is not keeping us safer. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24836264/)

Investigators find gaps in port security plan
Report: Weapons of mass destruction could be smuggled in cargo containers


updated 11:28 a.m. ET, Tues., May. 27, 2008
WASHINGTON - A Department of Homeland Security program to strengthen port
security has gaps that terrorists could exploit to smuggle weapons of mass
destruction in cargo containers, congressional investigators have found.

The report by the Government Accountability Office, being released Tuesday,
assesses the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT), a federal
program established after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to deter a potential
terrorist strike via cargo passing through 326 of the nation's airports,
seaports and designated land borders.

Under the program, roughly 8,000 importers, port authorities and air, sea
and land carriers are granted benefits such as reduced scrutiny of their
cargo. In exchange, the companies submit a security plan that must meet U.S.
Customs and Border Protection's minimum standards and allow officials to
verify their measures are being followed.



A 2005 GAO report found many of the companies were receiving the reduced
cargo scrutiny without the required full vetting by U.S. Customs, a division
of DHS. The agency has since made some improvements, but the new report
found that Customs officials still couldn't provide guarantees that
companies were in compliance.

Among the problems
- A company is generally certified as safer based on its self-reported
security information that Customs employees use to determine if minimum
government criteria are met. But due partly to limited resources, the agency
does not typically test the member company's supply-chain security practices
and thus is "challenged to know that members' security measures are
reliable, accurate and effective."

- Customs employees are not required to utilize third-party or other audits
of a company's security measures as an alternative to the agency's direct
testing, even if such audits exist.

- Companies can get certified for reduced Customs inspections before they
fully implement any additional security improvements requested by the U.S.
government. Under the program, Customs also does not require its employees
to systematically follow up to make sure the requested improvements were
made and that security practices remained consistent with the minimum
criteria.

"Until Customs overcomes these collective challenges, Customs will be unable
to assure Congress and others that C-TPAT member companies that have been
granted reduced scrutiny of their U.S.-bound containerized shipments
actually employ adequate security practices," investigators wrote. "It is
vital that Customs maintain adequate internal controls to ensure that member
companies deserve these benefits."

The GAO urged Customs and Border Protection to require consideration of
third-party and other outside audits and take steps to make certain
companies comply with any additional security improvements requested. The
report also calls for some technological improvements to help improve
consistency and better information-gathering in Customs' security checks.

Customs officials respond
Responding in part, Customs officials in the report agreed they could do
more to follow up on suggested security improvements but noted that
employees often use their expert discretion in assessing the potential
danger before certifying a company. The agency has also said the program
overall has made the nation safer.



Congress has been working to improve port security after the independent
Sept. 11 commission cited the potential dangers in its 2004 final report.
The commission stated that compared to commercial aviation, "opportunities
to do harm are as great, or greater, in maritime or surface transportation."
DHS has said that while the likelihood of terrorists smuggling weapons of
mass destruction into the U.S. in cargo containers is low, the nation's
vulnerability and consequences of such an attack are potentially high.

Maine Sen. Susan Collins, the top Republican on the Senate Homeland Security
Committee, said the report shows the importance of the private sector's
continued cooperation in helping improve port security. "I will continue to
work with DHS and the private sector to ensure the effectiveness of the
crucial port security program," she said.

The GAO study examined a sample of 25 company reviews by Customs and Border
Protection from March 1, 2006 through Sept. 30, 2006. Investigators
interviewed officials, reviewed documents and studied the agency's minimum
security criteria to see if standards were being met.

apdst
05-27-2008, 09:21 PM
How Bush is not keeping us safer.

As if anything is going to change when Obama gets elected.

Osborn F. Enready
05-27-2008, 10:21 PM
I would bet they found more gaps than security.

They should have titled it "some security found amongst gaps a-plenty".....

The GAO is a contradiction in itself, as if accountability at that level existed anymore....

lily
05-28-2008, 02:18 AM
As if anything is going to change when Obama gets elected.


How quickly we like to throw up the strawman. Sorry, in this case it's not going to work. Bush and every Republican runs on how they are the only ones that can keep us safe........and their soulution to the ports is, bascilly let them patrol themselves.

Sorry........after 7 years, I'd expcet a little more than that.

BoogyMan
05-28-2008, 02:36 AM
There is a reason for these kinds of audits. They show the status of a system of changes over time and where those changes have flaws and what needs to be done to overcome them. This audit is a good thing and it shows we still have work to do.

Talk about a strawman lily, you created a big one with "how Bush is not keeping us safer."

Buck Laser
05-28-2008, 02:42 AM
Talk about a strawman lily, you created a big one with "how Bush is not keeping us safer."
Strawman, huh? Does that mean that you think Bush IS keeping us safe? It's clear to me that the choice of Homeland Security bosses as a reward for political loyalty is bound to explode in his face.

BoogyMan
05-28-2008, 02:46 AM
Buck, read what I wrote. This report is an audit report that says we have more work to do, it is not the overarching condemnation of the president that some would make it out to be.

lily
05-28-2008, 02:51 AM
There is a reason for these kinds of audits. They show the status of a system of changes over time and where those changes have flaws and what needs to be done to overcome them. This audit is a good thing and it shows we still have work to do.

Talk about a strawman lily, you created a big one with "how Bush is not keeping us safer."


Really? Well, how about finding me a reliable article on how exactly Bush has secured the ports and made them safer, because in my opinion and after reading this article it just confirms that he's not and that it's all just lip service and no action. So, sorry.........my "how Bush is not keeping us safer" is not a strawman......it's part of the topic of this story..........but nice try.:thumbsup:

BoogyMan
05-28-2008, 03:06 AM
Yeah, it is a strawman because you take an article pointing out that we need to do more than we already have and try to use that to tag the president with some kind of error.

The funny thing is, that the president wasn't even mentioned in the story and the problematic agency is the customs enforcement agency. GAO audits like this one are done so that we can find our weaknesses and fix them, they are not intended to be turned around for use as a political tool.

lily
05-28-2008, 03:27 AM
Yeah, it is a strawman because you take an article pointing out that we need to do more than we already have and try to use that to tag the president with some kind of error.

The funny thing is, that the president wasn't even mentioned in the story and the problematic agency is the customs enforcement agency. GAO audits like this one are done so that we can find our weaknesses and fix them, they are not intended to be turned around for use as a political tool.

Oh, I see.........Bush is only repsonsible for the things that go well under his watch and not the things that don't.

You know..........fuck it.........this thread isn't about whether my opinion is a strawman or not...........AGAIN..........it is about port security and what this administration.........of which Bush is the head of has, or in this case, hasn't done for port security.

BoogyMan
05-28-2008, 04:37 AM
I didn't say it was only about the good things, that was a fallacy introduced by yourself lily.

I pointed out that GAO audits like this are intended to find the things that don't meet design and point them out so that they can be fixed. The article is not the blazing condemnation you wish it to be, rather it points out the flaws found during the audit.

You wish to claim NOTHING has been done which is not the case, the audit simply proves there is more to do.

apdst
05-28-2008, 06:11 AM
Bush and every Republican runs on how they are the only ones that can keep us safe

Yeah, and when the Dems take the reins, the security level will only go down. The Constitution won't allow us to do everything we need to do to secure our water ports.

Osborn F. Enready
05-28-2008, 05:05 PM
APDST said:
The Constitution won't allow us to do everything we need to do to secure our water ports.


ROFLMAO...... LOL.......

Yea, RIGHT!

Please explain that point apdst.

lily
05-28-2008, 11:37 PM
I didn't say it was only about the good things, that was a fallacy introduced by yourself lily.

I pointed out that GAO audits like this are intended to find the things that don't meet design and point them out so that they can be fixed. The article is not the blazing condemnation you wish it to be, rather it points out the flaws found during the audit.

You wish to claim NOTHING has been done which is not the case, the audit simply proves there is more to do.

You do know that you've said exactly the same thing 4 times now?

Phyxius
05-28-2008, 11:46 PM
How quickly we like to throw up the strawman.

He can't help it - it's all he has left... :madlaugh:

BoogyMan
05-28-2008, 11:57 PM
You do know that you've said exactly the same thing 4 times now?

Truth bears repetition. Point out the fallacy of my comments.

Elrathin
05-29-2008, 12:09 AM
I pointed out that GAO audits like this are intended to find the things that don't meet design and point them out so that they can be fixed.

And how long does it take it to fix the same things they have found for years Boogy?

apdst
05-29-2008, 12:20 AM
Yea, RIGHT!

Please explain that point apdst.

Sure, no problem. It's called: unwarranted searches of all compartments of a marine vessel.

Currently, it's only leagal to inspect cargo, and even then, only suspect cargo. To serch crew quarters and gallies, authorities would need a warrant.

Welcome to the real world.

Elrathin
05-29-2008, 12:21 AM
Sure, no problem. It's called: unwarranted searches of all compartments of a marine vessel.

How is this different than unwarranted phone taps apdst? You know the taps you and others PRAISE GWB for doing to save us from the terrorists?

apdst
05-29-2008, 12:26 AM
How is this different than unwarranted phone taps apdst? You know the taps you and others PRAISE GWB for doing to save us from the terrorists?

It's not any different. The Liberals are going to oppose the unwarranted seraches of foreign registered m/v's the same way.

BoogyMan
05-29-2008, 12:31 AM
And how long does it take it to fix the same things they have found for years Boogy?

Show me where this audit makes that claim El.

Elrathin
05-29-2008, 12:32 AM
Show me where this audit makes that claim El.

If I tell you a security measure is faulty. And it is the same fault that has been there for years. You can make a connection there is problem that hasn't been addressed Boogy. And if the problem hasn't been addressed, that is a clear and concise problem based on those responsible for making that security fix.

BoogyMan
05-29-2008, 12:42 AM
If I tell you a security measure is faulty. And it is the same fault that has been there for years. You can make a connection there is problem that hasn't been addressed Boogy. And if the problem hasn't been addressed, that is a clear and concise problem based on those responsible for making that security fix.

The OP speaks of a security plan for ports against which the audit has been performed. Such comments clearly point to the fact that a plan has been devised, yet needs further revision.

These kinds of audits are not political tools as people here want them to be. They are mechanisms to try and better the security at the ports. I have, as lily felt it necessary to point out, made this point quite clearly.

Elrathin
05-29-2008, 12:54 AM
The OP speaks of a security plan for ports against which the audit has been performed. Such comments clearly point to the fact that a plan has been devised, yet needs further revision.

These kinds of audits are not political tools as people here want them to be. They are mechanisms to try and better the security at the ports. I have, as lily felt it necessary to point out, made this point quite clearly.

Given the amount of money Boogy, where is the consequence for not meeting goals? There is none.

That is my point, this is a joke. Money is spent, it is not spent wisely and there NO accountability.

BoogyMan
05-29-2008, 03:31 AM
Given the amount of money Boogy, where is the consequence for not meeting goals? There is none.

That is my point, this is a joke. Money is spent, it is not spent wisely and there NO accountability.

There certainly should be some kind of penalty for not meeting goals just as there is in any entity subject to federal audit procedure.

Elrathin
05-29-2008, 03:40 AM
There certainly should be some kind of penalty for not meeting goals just as there is in any entity subject to federal audit procedure.

There should be, I agree with you, but where is there one? That is the biggest problem with the government.

BoogyMan
05-29-2008, 03:45 AM
There should be, I agree with you, but where is there one? That is the biggest problem with the government.

I don't know if there is or isn't. Usually when a federal auditing entity is involved there is the golden funding prize to be lost or maintained based on the audit results over time.

It would be interesting to see if there are any punitive actions over time for non-compliance.

Elrathin
05-29-2008, 03:49 AM
I don't know if there is or isn't. Usually when a federal auditing entity is involved there is the golden funding prize to be lost or maintained based on the audit results over time.

It would be interesting to see if there are any punitive actions over time for non-compliance.

It would be, and when will the public be notified of one? Oh yeah NEVER. The fact is this ends up as a bad record on someone's raise pay (which he still will most likely get) only it won't be noted as bad, it will be noted as an improvement needed.

IMO government raises, and employment pluses or minuses should also be public. These are people on the public pay, why shouldn't their raises also be public along with the reasons why?

Elrathin
05-29-2008, 03:53 AM
I worked for the VA, I would LOVE for the public to know why I did or did not get raise and for the reason(s) why.

I worked my ass off and frankly, I might have gotten a bigger raise if the public knew what I did or I might not have. But since my pay was essentially on the public pay, why shouldn't they see where their money was going?

apdst
05-29-2008, 04:03 AM
I worked for the VA, I would LOVE for the public to know why I did or did not get raise and for the reason(s) why.

That would be a violation of the privacy act.

Elrathin
05-29-2008, 04:10 AM
That would be a violation of the privacy act.

Given that I worked on the publics dollar I wouldn't have a problem with it.

In fact I think some government problems would be solved if MORE people knew the reasons some were given raises.