Our Porous Port Protections - New York Times

Our Porous Port Protections - New York Times: "only about 5 percent of the containers are inspected, a number most experts think is too low. And only 37 percent of the containers are screened for radiation as they leave the ports and head for the highways and railways."

The main concern behind this editorial is overall port security, not just the "Dubai-acle." As the author's opening concern is "any politician who harangues about the United Arab Emirates without fighting for more money and more attention for overall port security is posturing for votes, not protecting the country."

This is a subject I had hoped would be breeched much more earnestly once everyone got involved in an opinion on the U.A.E. deal; as security at our ports has been an issue long before 9/11.

If we were all so concerned about DP World managing a number of our ports; we should then take the logical next step and keep the subject open to hardening our ports.

One huge issue for many with DP World was the fact that they were owned by the government of Dubai. Well, an American owned (not government owned), obviously much preferred, but still a business in the business of making the ports run smoothly, quickly and ultimately make profits. Nothing wrong here, but the scare/concern brought about by the recent "deal" has past. We shouldn't all now sit back, relax and pat ourselves on the back, as the real work isn't done.

"only about 5 percent of the containers are inspected, a number most experts think is too low. And only 37 percent of the containers are screened for radiation as they leave the ports and head for the highways and railways."