Check out Flynn's testimony before Congress on December 6, 2001. This should be required reading for anyone who is concerned about homeland security: http://www.cfr.org/public/resource.cgi?pub!4239

Flynn goes on to say:

"But suppose there was a chemical weapon loaded in one of these containers which is triggered by opening its door. If this happened in the port of Newark, the effects would not be limited just to the maritime terminals within the East Coast's largest container port. The plume from a chemical weapon could readily contaminate the adjacent railroad tracks that link the northeast to the continental rail system, the New Jersey Turnpike, and the Newark International Airport—all of which are located within one mile of the container terminal. Presented with the prospect of such a calamity, government authorities might decide that no containers be allowed in the port at all. The economic consequences of cutting off the flow of cargo to a market of over 40 million consumers within a 200-mile radius are almost too-painful to contemplate, but would certainly represent an important victory for an anti-American terrorists."

So what can we do about it?

Flynn tries to answer the question:
"Given the cascading tide of peoples and goods moving through our seaports, and across our borders on trucks and trains, how do regulatory and enforcement agents accomplish their public mandates of filtering the bad from the good; and the dangerous from the benign?"

We need to solve this problem now because the first time a terrorist uses shipping containers to kill Americans (or even attempts to do it), our country's response would probably be to severely cut our trade (and therefore our livelihood) because that is currently our only remedy to solve this problem. Then the terrorists would have succeeded in their mission – to hit America's economy hard.

How to solve the problem:

First, I don't have all the answers. This is a very hard and complicated problem to solve. However, there are a few small things we can do:

1. Mandate that all containers be tracked, in real time, kind of like a FedEx package. Each container should have a global positioning device that can report continuously to the company-of-origin, the receiving company, and the U.S. government. Good shipping companies are already doing this for business reasons, so it shouldn't be a huge burden on business.

2. All container doors should have a light-sensor and other seals which will reveal if a container has been tampered with or opened in-route. Containers currently have seals that are easy to fool.

3. We need to identify low-risk containers. Since we can only inspect a small amount of cargo, we need to do a risk analysis on all shippers. We should focus our inspections on cargo from high-risk areas that have not completed the proper security protocols.

4. Let importing companies understand the benefits of providing extra security – perhaps set up a program where those that can prove they are more secure, have less delays in transporting the container. There will be an automatic incentive built into the system -- a favorable cost-benefit to following strict security procedures.

Though these four reforms are somewhat anti-free-market, they may be a necessary evil to stop the greater evil of border closings.

(What are your thoughts?   Write auren@summation.net)