Lawmakers, DHS Weigh How to Secure Ports Most Vulnerable to WMDs

Douglas P. Guarino, Global Security Newswire
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Douglas P. Guarino, Global Security Newswire
Oct. 17, 2013, 9:02 a.m.

WASH­ING­TON — Law­makers are work­ing with the Home­land Se­cur­ity De­part­ment to de­term­ine wheth­er it is feas­ible to es­tab­lish a U.S. pres­ence at the for­eign ports it con­siders most vul­ner­able to the smug­gling of il­li­cit weapons of mass de­struc­tion.

Ac­cord­ing to a re­port the non­par­tis­an Gov­ern­ment Ac­count­ab­il­ity Of­fice re­leased last month, the DHS Con­tain­er Se­cur­ity Ini­ti­at­ive does not have a pres­ence “at about half” of the ports U.S. Cus­toms and Bor­der Pro­tec­tion con­siders “high risk.” Mean­while, “about one fifth” of the ports where the con­tain­er pro­gram does have a pres­ence are con­sidered “lower risk loc­a­tions,” the re­port says.

This does not mean that high-risk con­tain­ers are not in­spec­ted be­fore they are un­loaded at U.S. ports, ac­cord­ing to an aide to the Sen­ate Home­land Se­cur­ity Com­mit­tee, which re­ques­ted the re­port. DHS of­fi­cials track such con­tain­ers elec­tron­ic­ally and or­der in­spec­tions upon ar­rival, said the Sen­ate staffer, who was not au­thor­ized to dis­cuss the is­sue and asked to not be named.

Still, it would be prefer­able to es­tab­lish a U.S. pres­ence at the high­er-risk ports so that more of the ris­ki­er con­tain­ers could be checked be­fore set­ting sail, ac­cord­ing to the aide.

“A dirty bomb go­ing off in the port of Long Beach is bet­ter than it go­ing off in down­town Los Angeles but it’s still pretty bad,” the staffer said. “If we can find it [at a for­eign port] we’re much bet­ter off.”

Shift­ing pro­gram re­sources from one port to an­oth­er is not ne­ces­sar­ily easy, however, the GAO re­port says. Ne­go­ti­ations are not al­ways suc­cess­ful with po­ten­tial host coun­tries where high­er-risk ports are loc­ated. In ad­di­tion, re­mov­ing DHS per­son­nel from lower-risk ports could neg­at­ively im­pact U.S. re­la­tions with cur­rent host coun­tries.

Start­ing up the con­tain­er-se­cur­ity pro­gram in new ports is also ex­pens­ive, and par­tic­u­larly dif­fi­cult “in an era of con­strained budgets,” the Sen­ate aide said. The com­mit­tee cur­rently is work­ing with DHS of­fi­cials to study the is­sue fur­ther and de­term­ine what, if any, prac­tic­al steps the de­part­ment can take to­ward pri­or­it­iz­ing the se­cur­ity of high­er-risk ports, ac­cord­ing to the staffer.

The aide said it was not yet clear wheth­er the com­mit­tee would take any fur­ther ac­tions, such as con­duct­ing over­sight hear­ings on the is­sue or ad­dress­ing it through le­gis­la­tion.

One way to ad­dress the is­sue would be to move back to the United States DHS of­fi­cials sta­tioned at for­eign ports who are primar­ily re­spons­ible for “tar­get­ing,” a pro­cess by which the of­fi­cials re­view com­puter as­sess­ments of which ship­ping con­tain­ers at a port are po­ten­tially high risk and de­term­ine which con­tain­ers re­quire manu­al in­spec­tion. Much of this tar­get­ing work can be done re­motely, the staffer said, par­tic­u­larly for ports where DHS of­fi­cials have a well-es­tab­lished re­la­tion­ship with the host coun­try and are con­fid­ent of its abil­ity to prop­erly con­duct the manu­al in­spec­tions.

Sta­tion­ing more DHS of­fi­cials who do mostly tar­get­ing work at home in the United States could save the pro­gram money, ac­cord­ing to aide, who es­tim­ated that it could cost three times as much to sta­tion such of­fi­cials abroad, be­cause of the price of lodging, trans­port­a­tion and cost-of-liv­ing ad­just­ments. These sav­ings could free up enough funds to al­low the pro­gram to ex­pand in­to new, high­er-risk ports.

Such a move has its draw­backs, however. In ad­di­tion to po­ten­tially an­ger­ing host coun­tries where the U.S. pres­ence would be pared down, the ap­proach could be seen as con­trary to a strategy the de­part­ment has em­braced since the failed bomb­ing of a com­mer­cial air­line flight bound for De­troit in 2009. After the Christ­mas Day in­cid­ent, in which the per­pet­rat­or was not ap­pre­hen­ded un­til he reached U.S. soil, “DHS re­com­mit­ted to this idea of hav­ing people over­seas where they can fa­cil­it­ate in­spec­tions,” the Sen­ate aide said.

Ac­cord­ing to the GAO re­port, there also could be leg­al obstacles.

“For ex­ample, ac­cord­ing to [U.S. Cus­toms] and gov­ern­ment of­fi­cials in one coun­try, a na­tion­al law pre­cludes the trans­mis­sion of elec­tron­ic scanned im­ages oth­er than to host gov­ern­ment of­fi­cials,” the re­port says. “As a res­ult, [DHS] of­fi­cials must be present at each [Con­tain­er Se­cur­ity Ini­ti­at­ive] port in that coun­try to view the scanned im­ages.”

The GAO re­port re­com­mends that the de­part­ment peri­od­ic­ally as­sess the risks from all for­eign ports that ship to the United States in or­der to “in­form any fu­ture ex­pan­sion of [the con­tain­er-se­cur­ity pro­gram] to ad­di­tion­al loc­a­tions and … de­term­ine wheth­er changes need to be made” at ports already par­ti­cip­at­ing in the pro­gram.

The de­part­ment in a Sept. 4 let­ter con­curred with this re­com­mend­a­tion, say­ing that it would for­mu­late a pro­cess for con­duct­ing such as­sess­ments. DHS of­fi­cials ex­pect to com­plete the first as­sess­ment by Au­gust 2014 and to de­cide on any changes to the con­tain­er-se­cur­ity pro­gram by Decem­ber 2014, ac­cord­ing to the let­ter.

What We're Following See More »
UNTIL DEC. 9, ANYWAY
Obama Signs Bill to Fund Government
2 hours ago
THE LATEST
REDSKINS IMPLICATIONS
SCOTUS to Hear Case on Offensive Trademarks
3 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

"The Supreme Court is taking up a First Amendment clash over the government’s refusal to register offensive trademarks, a case that could affect the Washington Redskins in their legal fight over the team name. The justices agreed Thursday to hear a dispute involving an Asian-American rock band called the Slants, but they did not act on a separate request to hear the higher-profile Redskins case at the same time." Still, any precedent set by the case could have ramifications for the Washington football team.

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Bannon Still Collecting Royalties from ‘Seinfeld’
4 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The Hollywood Reporter takes a look at a little-known intersection of politics and entertainment, in which Trump campaign CEO Steve Bannon is still raking in residuals from Seinfeld. Here's the digest version: When Seinfeld was in its infancy, Ted Turner was in the process of acquiring its production company, Castle Rock, but he was under-capitalized. Bannon's fledgling media company put up the remaining funds, and he agreed to "participation rights" instead of a fee. "Seinfeld has reaped more than $3 billion in its post-network afterlife through syndication deals." Meanwhile, Bannon is "still cashing checks from Seinfeld, and observers say he has made nearly 25 times more off the Castle Rock deal than he had anticipated."

Source:
IT’S ALL CLINTON
Reliable Poll Data Coming in RE: Debate #1
4 hours ago
WHY WE CARE
NEXT THURSDAY
Trump Transition Team Meeting with Silicon Valley VIPs
6 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Donald Trump's "transition team will meet next week with representatives of the tech industry, multiple sources confirmed, even as their candidate largely has been largely shunned by Silicon Valley. The meeting, scheduled for next Thursday at the offices of law and lobbying firm BakerHostetler, will include trade groups like the Information Technology Industry Council and the Internet Association that represent major Silicon Valley companies."

Source:
×