Bomb-Sniffing Dogs Close Seattle Port

(CBS/AP)  Authorities evacuated dozens of workers and set up a half-mile perimeter around part of the city's port Wednesday after bomb-sniffing dogs indicated that two shipping containers from Pakistan could contain explosives.

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection Service told CBS News that an X-ray machine "revealed 'anomalies' in two containers from Pakistan."

Customs agents used the "gamma-ray" device at Terminal 18, south of downtown, to peer through the containers' steel walls and detected some items inside did not match the containers' manifest, agency spokesman Mike Milne said.

The containers were then subjected to the dogs, which raised concerns about explosives. A bomb squad that searched the containers found nothing dangerous.

Officials said the containers were supposed to contain oily rags, which are often shipped internationally for recycling or use in packaging. Authorities continued examining the cargo Wednesday afternoon.

It was not immediately clear why the dogs were mistaken.

Milne said the ship had originated in Hong Kong and made stops in China before arriving Monday in Seattle.

Terminal 18 covers nearly 200 acres, making it the port's largest container terminal and one of the largest in the nation. It serves more than 20 steamship lines and receives more than 40 vessels each month.

[vickid12]

Just because the bomb squad found no explosives doesn't mean the dogs were mistaken. As every dog handler know it is possible that there had been explosives in the container at some time and they have since been removed. The dogs simply tell the handler what they smell-no more, no less.

[alphaa10-2009]

Postscript-- Homeland Security issued a report in 2005 stating airport X-ray machines aren't good enough to inspect shoes for explosives. This year, however, the Transportation Safety Administration continued to insist its X-ray machines are good enough, after all.

Now, we have super-sensitive US seaport fission detectors giving a false positive (presuming what federal authorities said was true). Even the dogs were fooled by "oily rags" from Pakistan.

What security actually exists at US seaports and airports? A baseline of sorts is the repeated failure of all 21 US airports sampled this year by the GAO to pass basic TSA requirements. Federal agents were able to smuggle contraband items (not specified in the classified report) past airport screeners. These items were all potential components of bombs.

[alphaa10-2009]

Seattle is a very high profile port for Pacific Basin trade partners, but not the typical US port. That means any nondescript shipping containers sent elsewhere on the US coasts probably won't get this showcase treatment by US authorities-- if they are inspected at all.

This is called a massive security hole. The sheer enormity of the task of securing US ports has driven ports officials to claim congressional appropriations in 2003 for US port security are woefully inadequate. The US Coast Guard estimates $7.4 billion must be spent over the next decade to comply with a law that has been called another "unfunded mandate" from the Bush administration and congress. In other words, the money isn't there, but do something, anyway.

When the congress passed the ports security law, so many US ports were simply unprepared, the compliance deadline was set back one year-- and 80 per cent of US ports still were not ready a year later! To add insult to injury, existing funding is largely discretionary, which means the long list of ports clamoring for federal aid isn't directly related to how federal money is distributed. For example, New York City was told its ports and city security concerns would be *cut* this year.

Our port system remains largely unprotected. Yet, Bush wants to burn federal security money on the debacle in Iraq, not realizing al Qaeda can hit the US coastline from a worldwide network stretching from Singapore to Hamburg. 911, itself, was staged from Hamburg.