Established 1826 — Oldest College Newspaper West of the Alleghenies

GOP's objection to security bill sends mixed message

Michael Bain

In yet another example of hypocrisy, the Bush administration and Congressional Republicans have lambasted the House Democrats' comprehensive security bill, which seeks to address several prominent security gaps. It is particularly frustrating that the Republican Party has failed to shore up these well-known breaches, outright ignoring or inadequately implementing measures recommended by the 9/11 commission. While the proposed bill needs to be reformed in order to address feasibility issues, as pointed out by several Senate Democrats, the fact that the new government is taking a look at unaddressed security concerns should help put to rest the

ridiculous campaign claims made during the past five years that the GOP is the only responsible guardian of American safety.

The security bill would require that all passenger jet cargo is checked for explosives and that all shipping containers destined for the United States are inspected for WMD material while overseas. Phase-in of the new inspection policies would occur within three and five years, respectively. Additionally, the bill proposes to redistribute more than $2 billion in security grants to localities based upon their perceived risk of attack, while setting aside additional funds to protect mass transit systems such as Amtrak.

Republican objection to the bill sends a mixed message, with the party and the president rhetorically advocating that we take every precaution, including war, in order to guard against terrorism and then criticizing a more comprehensive homeland security policy. The short time frame allotted is critical to ensure that headway is actually made in achieving the inspection goals, while the costs incurred are relatively little compared to those incurred in other War on Terror policies, or those that would be suffered should a weapon be smuggled into the United States.

While some contend that such security measures will be accompanied by negative economic consequences, so too has the phenomenally expensive Iraq war. Nonetheless, while the former policy will remedy often-cited security concerns in a pragmatic manner, few could honestly argue that the war has done the same. In light of all the free spirited spending that has taken place during the last six years, it makes sense to implement policy that works toward our goals rather than against them. Perhaps even more ridiculous is the criticism reported in The New York Times Jan. 9, 2007, which stated that should cargo containers be inspected, potential terrorists could find "other ways to smuggle weapons into the United States, including private boats." As this option is already available, it makes more sense to inspect what we can, limiting available avenues of weapons transport, while also channeling law enforcement efforts.

The proposed comprehensive security bill is not perfect, nor is it above the realm of Democratic political posturing. However, it is commendable for its focus on visible security gaps and several methods are offered to help resolve them. With only a one-vote majority in the Senate, any such security reforms will require compromise. In this case, it is vital to consider the economic and pragmatic costs of such a policy, but it is also important to remember the costs of ignoring visible security concerns because of bureaucratic and political ineptitude.