Confused? So are we. Here’s why.

– “BUSINESS TIMES (Singapore) – A requirement for 100 percent scanning of cargo containers destined for US ports is inevitable, said the head of security for the Port of Los Angeles … Currently the level of security at US ports is ‘nowhere near the level of competency it should be’, Mr. Ronald J. Boyd said … ‘Certainly it doesn’t come close to equating to aviation,’ said Mr. Boyd, who was formerly the head of security at the Los Angeles International Airport.

– In a statement released by the Retail Industry Leaders Association, Jonathan Gold, vice president of global supply-chain policy, said, “Setting an arbitrary number of physical inspections of containers would only result in commerce grinding to a halt.” The impact, he added, could rival the economic harm of a terrorist attack.

– After a three-year review, a panel headed by Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., raised troubling questions about the administration’s timetable for screening 100 percent of shipping containers … Many legislators, including Sen . Coleman and Minnesota Democrats Reps. Jim Oberstar and Martin Sabo, say that unless 100 percent of containers are screened, the nation is not safe from external threat.

– All agree the good news is the apprehension of 22 people smuggled into the country in a container, but the bad news is they made it out of a foreign port, across the high seas, and onto a Seattle dock without detection …”If they can smuggle 22 people in a container equipped with food and water, think how easy it would be for terrorists to put weapons in a container,” – Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash.

– Many congressional Republicans, the administration and the shipping industry say scanning all containers is unnecessary, unreliable and would hurt the economy by delaying global shipping … Inspecting every container “is like saying we ought to strip-search everybody who gets on an airplane,” said Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. “I mean, in theory, that would make us very safe, but I think it would destroy the airline industry.”

– Americans United for Change, has created a 30-second television advertisement advocating full inspection of containers. The ad features Mike Mitre, port security director for the International Longshore and Warehouse Union. In it, Mitre says that four years after 9-11, the president and his supporters have left the U.S. vulnerable to terrorist attack using a container to conceal a dirty bomb. The ad calls for 100 percent inspection of containers “for real security”.

– If officers opened every container, shipments would back up and “we would cripple the economy” says Kevin McCabe, O-in-C at Newark’s Homeland Security Department.

– New Jersey’s Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez are having trouble convincing their colleagues in the Republican-controlled Senate that screening all containers is the only practical way to deter terrorists. They fear terrorists might hide a bomb in one of the more than 10 million U.S.-bound containers that aren’t scanned for radiation or x-rayed. “If we can screen every passenger who boards an airplane, we can scan every cargo container that enters our ports,” Lautenberg said in a statement. “Screening only one container out of every 20 is a recipe for disaster.”

– OPINION: The Tribune-Democrat, Johnstown, PA – “Apparently, there are those who believe so-called high-risk containers can be easily identified. Do we expect terrorists to label the containers they use with ‘Warning! Contains nuclear weapon and radioactive materials’? If we could tell which containers pose a danger, would expensive electronic monitoring be necessary? It is hard to believe that terrorists would conceal their contraband in a container that is just begging to be screened.”

– WASHINGTON, PR/Newswire/ – The Coalition for Secure Ports today called on members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives to reject maritime and supply chain security proposals that would damage the U.S. economy and disrupt existing securities startegies. The “Sail Only If Scanned (SOS)” legislative proposals currently being circulated on Capitol Hill aim to suspend trade with any nation whose ports do not undertake 100% inspection of containers before vessel loading … “The “Sail Only If Scanned” proposals risk severely disrupting U.S. commerce and creating disputes with America’s trading partners while failing to address their far-reaching implications for our maritime security strategy,” said Christopher Koch, President of the World Shipping Council, a member of the Coalition for Secure Ports … “These proposals are simply unworkable, and enacting them would set off a chain reaction that would potentially cripple our international maritime trading system,” concluded Koch.

– “This is a reasonable bill, but it doesn’t matter much if we don’t scan every container for a nuclear or radiological bomb that would make 9/11 look like a firecracker,” said Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y. … Already, suspicious containers are X-rayed at some U.S. ports after they arrive. Oakland, for instance, already has such equipment. But Nadler said that if only suspicious containers are scanned, terrorists will simply put bombs in low-risk containers. “If we really want to make this country safer, we must demand that before any container is put on a ship bound for the United States it must be scanned electronically in the foreign port. It’s too late if we find a nuclear bomb in Los Angeles or New York.”

Every one of these folks is an official in some capacity, or at least an authority of some kind. Some are of the opinion that our container-handling ports are this nation’s Achilles’ Heel, our soft-underbellies, if you will. Others present the danger as minimal, even exaggerated, and that too much emphasis on cautionary measures would bring dire consequences this country’s economic supply chain. Are axes being grinded, or oxen being gored? How are port authorities supposed to evaluate the contradictory stances being taken with respect to terrorism? Was Senator Byrd trying to tell us something in those remarks he published in the Congressional Record?