Fourth, we might have declared an embargo against the shipping from American ports of any merchandise to either one of these governments that persisted in maintaining its military zone.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
And let us be frank, the security threats that emanate from our ports come from foreign cargo.
The U.S. trade embargo on Cuba is almost completely ineffective, as many other countries, including the European Union, do not honor it.
Our ports and our borders are the most unprotected fronts in the war on terror.
In 1963, the U.N. Security Council declared a voluntary arms embargo on South Africa. That was extended to a mandatory embargo in 1977. And that was followed by economic sanctions and other measures - sometimes officials, countries, cities, towns - some organized by popular movements.
The Exxon Valdez spill triggered a swift and strong response that changed policies about shipping, about double-hulled construction. A number of laws came into place.
We would certainly welcome the recipient nation to put their inspectors on our shores, if they wanted to make that investment to help protect that shipment that is outgoing.
All those trucks and barges that carry our goods to port are vital connections to the only force which can balance our trade deficit: export. We must keep doing what we do best if we are going to get America out of the red.
It is the function of the Navy to carry the war to the enemy so that it is not fought on U.S. soil.
Last year, customs officials screened only five percent of the 11 million cargo containers entering the United States. That rate is both unacceptable and dangerous to our national and economic interests.
I can't think of a time that the U.S. government asked us or instructed us not to report or air something.