Editorial
Port Security Won’t Bankrupt Us
Published: September 14, 2006
Michael Chertoff, the secretary of Homeland Security, seems determined to outdo his commander in chief in ratcheting up fears of Al Qaeda whenever he wants to score political points. This week, he raised the specter that if the government starts too many expensive antiterrorism programs it could further a plot by Osama bin Laden to “drive us crazy, into bankruptcy” through overspending on homeland defense.
It was particularly ironic that Mr. Chertoff spun this theory while he was fighting off a measure, up for a vote today, that would help protect our ports against the threat that he himself deems most worrisome — a nuclear explosion within our borders — without government spending.
In testifying before a Senate committee on Tuesday, Mr. Chertoff flailed away at straw men of his own concoction. He warned darkly about the dangers of trying to protect the country from “every conceivable threat” — an idea no one has ever espoused. The issue has always been the need to set priorities, and in that respect, Mr. Chertoff’s department has become a laughingstock. It compiled one list of possible targets that included a petting zoo and a popcorn factory while the government provided only a pittance for our vulnerable subways.
The White House has been warning that Osama bin Laden enunciated a policy in 2004 of “bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy.” But there’s no reason to think the terrorist was hatching a plot to force his enemies to buy too many metal detectors or bomb-sniffing dogs. He actually seemed to be gloating about the economic harm wrought by attacks like the one on the World Trade Center, and the costs imposed on America by military adventures. So far, we have not heard anyone from the administration warning that the invasion of Iraq is going to drive us crazy, into bankruptcy....
***
When it comes to homeland security, the Bush administration has repeatedly allowed corporate profits to trump safety. That seems to be the problem here, just as it has been when it came to the chemical industry’s resistance to reforms that would help protect against toxic disasters if terrorists ever attacked their plants. Right now, a port security bill is pending in the Senate that would establish three pilot programs overseas to test the feasibility of scanning all containers. But (Senator)Schumer is surely right that delay is dangerous and unnecessary. Virtually all containers destined for the United States should be scanned for nuclear or radiological weapons within the next four years. It is not enough to scan the containers after their arrival here, the current administration policy. That could be too late.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/14/opinion/14thu1.html 
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
