100% Cargo Screening – Where Do the Presidential Candidates Stand?

Security 2 comments


We’ve posted quite a bit on the government’s proposed mandate to screen 100% of cargo into the US here, here, and here.

My colleague and I have had many conversations regarding the proposed mandate and both agree that not only will it be a gargantuan task, but it is also a bit impractical. Obviously the security of our ports and airports should absolutely be a major national security priority, but why not take a logical approach to the situation? Take for instance a large retail importer in the United States; they import the same goods from the same supplier month after month, year after year. Does this importer pose a significant security risk? If that same importer suddenly moves manufacturing to a new location or to a new supplier, then by all means screen the cargo.

So where do our two presidential candidates stand on the issue? According to newsday.com, here are the comparisons:

Barack Obama

Obama says he is for screening and scanning all cargo entering U.S. ports. His position papers says he “has voted for efforts to mandate screening for all inbound cargo to the U.S.”

John McCain

As one example of a specific issue difference, McCain indicates he is not for screening and scanning all cargo, but would do it based on an assessment of the risk of the cargo.

Where do you stand on the issue? Drop us a comment and let us know.

About The Author: Co-Contributor

  • Shawn in Tokyo October 28, 2008, 8:09 am

    I agree with McCain on this issue.

  • SwizStick October 30, 2008, 5:40 pm

    Yup, 100% cargo screening is not a realistic or reasonable goal. I agree with McCain and this issue – risk assessment approach is the best way.

Leave a Comment