Wal-Mart is Against Tighter Port Security.... it costs them too much

Wal-Mart's Dirty Secret is Out

The Dubai Ports World battle has trumpeted the gaping holes in our seaports' security systems, but few ask: Why are U.S. ports so poorly protected nearly five years after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001? Why has the government spent just $630 million -- less than 4 percent of the $18 billion-plus we have spent since 9/11 on airport security -- to make ports safer?

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., said it best: " talk about having strong homeland security, checking 100 percent of cargo containers. In the end, our commercial interests get ahead of us."

Those commercial interests are led by the world's largest retailer and the United States' biggest importer, Wal-Mart. Hunter let slip what is surely Wal-Mart's dirtiest secret: the company, through its Washington, D.C., lobbyist, the Retail Industry Leaders Association, has time and again since 9/11 opposed new port and supply-chain security rules that might cut into Wal-Mart's record profits. Its mantra is: "Security requirements should not become a barrier to trade."

In the past few years, Wal-Mart has:

Opposed the introduction of anti-terrorist "smart containers" and electronic seals for cargo containers coming into U.S. ports. The retail industry called them "feel good (security) measures."
Opposed independent and regular inspections of supply-chain security practices around the world.
Opposed tougher rules requiring Wal-Mart to let Customs know what it's shipping in and where it comes from.
Opposed new container-handling fees to pay for improved port security.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0406-21.htm

Gee I feel so sorry for them. Not

know!!!!

Great post. Thanks.

Consumers need low prices even if it means placing the nation at risk. I just love Wal-Mart watching out for my best interests.

9-11 changed everything, Wal-Mart is not GM, what is good for Wal-Mart isn't good for the USA.

fuck you and the ship you sailed in on. always wanted to say that.

You scum-sucking bastards.

Every major hard goods retailer, and a lot of food retailers, would see their goods sitting offshore for months while containers were searched. Somehow, I think this problem could be solved fairly easily; it would cost a lot of money upfront for scanners and detectors, but it would be a onetime charge.

suitcase nukes to blow up them freedom-hatin' Dumbocrats in Congress without good ole Wal-Mart World allowing de stuff to git inta the US on dem Chinese ships?