Audit Faults U.S. for Its Spending on Port Defense (DOHS blows it again!)

[truthpusher]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/politics/20secure.html?hp&ex=1108875600&en=7974a6fb29033bfa&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Audit Faults U.S. for Its Spending on Port Defense
By ERIC LIPTON

Published: February 20, 2005

WASHINGTON, Feb. 18 - The Department of Homeland Security has given hundreds of millions of dollars to protect ports since Sept. 11 without focusing on those ports that are most vulnerable, compromising the ability to defend against attacks, the department's inspector general has concluded.

(snip)

Ninety-five percent of all international commerce enters the United States through the nation's approximately 360 public and private ports. But nearly 80 percent of that trade moves through only 10 ports, with the biggest loads passing through Los Angeles, Long Beach, New York and Oakland. That is why the nation's biggest ports are seen as particularly attractive as terrorist targets; severely damaging one of them would not only cause deaths and injuries and property damage, but could also disrupt the flow of basic goods into and out of the country, officials say.

However, the audit found that a number of questionable grants were made. Among these were awards to small ports, to inland ports and to projects that appeared to be more economic- than security-related.

(snip)

After examining four separate rounds of port grants, the inspector general found that the department appeared to be intentionally distributing the money as widely as possible, instead of focusing it on the biggest ports or other locations that intelligence reports suggested were most likely to be future targets.

Major ports like New York, Los Angeles, Long Beach and Oakland received large allocations. But smaller grants went to ports in places like St. Croix in the Virgin Islands, Martha's Vineyard, Mass., Ludington, Mich., and six locations in Arkansas, none of which the audit said appeared to meet eligibility requirements. The department, as a result, "had no assurance that the program is protecting the nation's most critical and vulnerable port infrastructure and assets," the audit said.

complete story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/politics/20secure.html?hp&ex=1108875600&en=7974a6fb29033bfa&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[napi21]

1. Martha's Vineyard and ARK???

Isn't that Kennedy & Clinton territory?

All along I didn't think Ridge had any idea what he was doing, but doesn't this sound a little odd for a Pub?

[DeepModem Mom]

2. NYT lead story today -- n/t