Protecting the pages or the ports
In all the contraversy surrounding one sick man and his dealings with a handful of pages, another piece of Congressional news happened to slip below the collective radar.
In committee, provisions which would have required criminal background checks for port workers disappeared from a port security bill. Based on this revised bill, there will be no statutory requirement to see if whoever is unloading the containers has been a smuggler, drug dealer, or murderer.
If either party were really concerned about “protecting our children” or “national security” this wouldn’t have happened. One man and his dealings with a few kids is sad; the consequences of failure in the ports could be disasterous for millions.
Why don’t we get our priorities straight instead of using e actions of an indefensible man to jockey for political advantage or trying to prevent perceived political disadvantage from having that man in your party.
That should be common sense.
In committee, provisions which would have required criminal background checks for port workers disappeared from a port security bill. Based on this revised bill, there will be no statutory requirement to see if whoever is unloading the containers has been a smuggler, drug dealer, or murderer.
If either party were really concerned about “protecting our children” or “national security” this wouldn’t have happened. One man and his dealings with a few kids is sad; the consequences of failure in the ports could be disasterous for millions.
Why don’t we get our priorities straight instead of using e actions of an indefensible man to jockey for political advantage or trying to prevent perceived political disadvantage from having that man in your party.
That should be common sense.
Labels: Congress, democrats, Mark Foley, port security, republicans
1 Comments:
Two comments:
1.) It seems that port workers should undergo at least the same level of pre-employment screening as airport workers. Both are important entrances to the country. Do we have murderers and drug-dealers working in the airports? Probably. They just haven't been convicted yet.
2.) The problem with the Foley story is that is more than just one indefensible man. It involves irresponsibility on the part a number of people in our governments leadership who knew something terrible wrong was happening but didn't lift a finger to stop it. Isn't it "the government’s first and foremost obligation" to protect its citizens? (See 09/08/06 "When the ends justify the means") If the current governmental leadership is willing to torture people for national security, why can't they themselves make such a relatively small sacrifice to ensure the security and well being of our nation's young people?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home