Arabs will control US ports

[Reiko]

YIKES!!

Stupid bush!

 

[web730]

I wondered what the fuss about the ports lately. I didn't catch up on that yet but I ought to check it out when I have free time asap.

The way it sounds in this thread ain't any good.

Bush is the worst modern US Prez in my memory. Don't think that he is a true christian like he claimed so .. mere like a very weak christian. He has made several huge mistakes that costed us and then some. Now this thing with the ports. Can't wait to see him ousted. It even made me more sorry for voting him.

ps. I wonder whether Kerry or Bush would be worse?! Who knows.

 

[Teresh]

The issue for me comes down to security. The company is not US based and will not be required to keep a lot of their paperwork here. That means that if anyone wanted to audit them for security measures, those papers and information will not be available to us...we would just have to take their word that everything is secure. If they were US based, then they would have to provide those answers. This company does not.

Lots of companies that aren't based in the US do business here... Ever heard of Sony? Nintendo? Honda? Hyundai? Nissan? Mitsubishi? The US can't expect other nations to open their own borders to its products if it will not to the same to them. The US already imports way too much more than it exports... Our economy is a house of cards, and isolationism would only make that worse.

Terminal employees are supposed to be getting background checks, however, not all of them have been checked. How do we know this company will see to it that all employees get the background checks. It only takes one employee to change a cargo ladle and have something smuggled into this country..whether its guns, weapons, people, drugs, etc.

Yeah, and it only takes one disgruntled salaryman to set a building on fire. Security is an exponential curve--The more you pay, the less security you get per unit of money. The total amoung of security you will get will continue to grow, but at an increasingly smaller rate relative to cost.

Execessive security does nothing more than wasting money.

Can we trust that a UAE-based firm will do full background checks? No. And I say that's OK, because background checks have thus far never done anything but waste money. Have background checks ever prevented any terrorist attacks? No.

US customs already have their hands full trying to keep things out, however, its a difficult task. Now with this company running the show, they do not have to provide the documentation to US customs.

That's simply not true. Customs still has full authority over anything coming into the country. Owning and operating a port means owning and operating a port, it doesn't mean being able to circumvent importation laws. Private airports still need to have US customs there, private seaports are the same way.

And you have to take into consideration that whether the company has a proven track record or not, they are coming from a country that has known and proven terroristic ties and supports terroristic activities. Now we've just opened up the doors to whatever they want to bring in...and anything can be brought in for a price.

That's just your GOP fearmongering. The UAE itself has no terrorist ties. Have there ever been any terrorists in the UAE before? Yeah, a handful, justl ike the KKK and The Order existed (and still do exist) in the US. That doesn't mean the government supports them or doesn't arrest them when they're found. Face it, you think that just because the country is predominantly Arab they're full of terrorists, an idea which is simply ridiculous.

At a minimum, I think it should be delayed so the security review can be further scrutinized. They say its fine but I say its too early to tell. Currently things are being run by the British who have proven to be the best of allies.

They're being run by private companies, not the government. The UAE is simply another country, also an ally of ours. To say, "Oh, they can't do this because they're Arabs from the Middle East" is just plain old garden variety racism.

 

[Taylor]

Teresh,
Not sure why I'm the only one you singled out, but here goes. First, I dont have an issue 'because they are just Arabs'. In a previous post, you said this whole thing stinks of racism...and I'm glad you have lumped me in with that crowd.

I have no problem that they are Arabs...my problem is it wasn't until recently that UAE offered any cooperation to the United States to fight terrorism. Additionally, UAE has been known to fund terrorist groups and harbor terrorists. It wasn't until the past few years they started changing their tune a little.

Arab Firm Offers to Delay Deal On Seaports
Senators Challenge Legality of Approval

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 24, 2006; Page A01

Facing unrelenting political and national security concerns, an Arab maritime company offered late last night to delay part of its $6.8 billion deal to take over significant operations at six U.S. ports, after White House aide Karl Rove suggested that President Bush could accept some delay of the deal.

The surprise announcement should give Bush extra time to try to convince lawmakers from both parties that the port deal does not present an avenue for terrorists to exploit the nation's vulnerable and heavily populated seaports. Earlier in the day, Republican and Democratic senators questioned whether the Bush administration followed federal law when it approved Dubai Ports World's purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., also known as P&O. That purchase will give the Dubai-owned firm managerial control over operations at six ports, including those of New York and New Orleans.

Ten administration officials faced a barrage of questions from members of the Senate Armed Services Committee as they defended their decision to forgo a national security review of the deal. Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert M. Kimmitt said the decision last month to ratify the deal will be reconsidered only if officials find that officers of Dubai Ports World gave the government false, inaccurate or misleading information. But facing a bipartisan revolt over the deal, Rove told Fox News's "Tony Snow Show" that the White House could accept a delay in the transfer of port management, which is set for March 2.

"There are some hurdles, regulatory hurdles, that this still needs to go through on the British side, as well, that are going to be concluded next week," Rove said. "There's no requirement that it close, you know, immediately after that. But our interest is in making certain the members of Congress have full information about it, and that, we're convinced, will give them a level of comfort with this."

In an accord coordinated with the White House, Dubai Ports World agreed not to exercise control or influence the management of the U.S. ports while the administration talks with Congress. Other parts of the deal with P&O will go forward.

"It is not only unreasonable but also impractical to suggest that the closing of this entire global transaction should be delayed," Dubai Ports World said in a statement.

It is not at all clear whether the offer will placate lawmakers, who have vowed to block the deal as soon as Congress reconvenes Monday. The imbroglio over the port decision has tarnished the administration's image of political strength on national security matters and called into question why Cabinet members and other high-ranking officials failed to consult with the president and members of Congress before approving the sensitive transaction.

With the White House saying the president did not learn about the sale until last weekend -- when lawmakers began complaining about it -- Bush has signaled that opposition to the port purchase smacks of anti-Arab bias that is undermining Washington's efforts to improve relations in the Middle East. To critics, the White House has put its free-trade economic agenda above concerns that go to the heart of fears in the post-Sept. 11, 2001, world: that underprotected ports could be the scene of a deadly terrorist strike, possibly with nuclear weapons.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey announced yesterday that it will sue to block the sale.

Dubai Ports World, owned by the government of Dubai, is set to take over next week management of 24 of 829 terminals at the ports of Baltimore, New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Miami and New Orleans.

"This wouldn't be going forward if we were not certain that our ports would be secure," Bush said at a meeting of his Cabinet.

Despite the entreaties of the administration, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) said bipartisan legislation will be introduced next week to scuttle the deal, or at least to force a 45-day investigation into the deal's national security implications.

The administration's refusal to conduct such an investigation was at the center of a debate yesterday during the first public briefing on the deal since it was approved Jan. 17. Under a 1992 amendment to the law that created the interagency Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, the CFIUS panel "shall" conduct such an investigation if a company operating in the United States is purchased by a firm controlled by a foreign government, and if anyone in that company could affect national security.

Kimmitt said the Bush administration believes the law gives it the discretion to decide whether such a review takes place. Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England said that, in a review that was "definitely not cursory," no national security concerns were raised by the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency or the U.S. Transportation Command that would have triggered further investigation.

The administration's interpretation of the CFIUS law was met with skepticism during yesterday's briefing, attended by four Democratic senators and only one Republican.

"Ambiguity has been found in a statute that is unambiguous," said Sen. Carl M. Levin (Mich.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.) asked Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales for a memorandum on how the review of the ports deal was consistent with the law, and he requested a separate review by the Senate's legal counsel.

The hearing presented two very different views of the United Arab Emirates, of which Dubai is a part. The country is seen by the administration as a stalwart and indispensable ally in the terrorism fight and by Senate Democrats as a base for terrorism and nuclear proliferation.

Citing the report of the bipartisan commission that investigated the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Levin asked whether any CFIUS member had questioned former White House counterterrorism official Richard A. Clarke about his 1999 contacts with UAE officials, when he queried inquired about possible associations with Osama bin Laden. None had.

Levin asked whether any CFIUS member had discussed with the commissioners their conclusion that the United Arab Emirates had become both a valued counterterrorism ally and a persistent counterterrorism problem. None had.

And Levin asked whether any CFIUS member had talked to Clinton administration officials about their unsuccessful efforts to press the United Arab Emirates to cut its ties with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and end flights into Dubai that provided a key transit point for Taliban officials and their terrorist clients. None had.
"Is there not one agency in this government that believes this takeover could affect the national security of the United States?" Levin asked.

So a lot of things that normally took place, such as a further review of foreign companies, were bypassed this time. Why would it be customary for a review to take place and then this time say 'We don't need a review'? I also found it interesting that nobody consulted the 9/11 commission on its dealings with UAE...such as its known support of the Taliban before it was taken down.

I'm troubled that steps were taken to hurry this deal along (Bush has only known for a few days), things that were customary (such as an additional review) were bypassed, and I'm concerned that groups like the 9/11 commission were excluded from discussions about the UAE.

 

[Taylor]

Lots of companies that aren't based in the US do business here... Ever heard of Sony? Nintendo? Honda? Hyundai? Nissan? Mitsubishi? The US can't expect other nations to open their own borders to its products if it will not to the same to them. The US already imports way too much more than it exports... Our economy is a house of cards, and isolationism would only make that worse.

There is a difference in selling your product in the US from overseas vs running ports from overseas. Lets say the US buys 1 million Hondas. We would have the records that show the US bought 1 million Hondas. With foreign companies that operate their offices here, paperwork can be sent back to their corporate offices and we have no access to them. There is no way for us to tell exactly what is coming through our ports.

That's just your GOP fearmongering. The UAE itself has no terrorist ties. Have there ever been any terrorists in the UAE before? Yeah, a handful, justl ike the KKK and The Order existed (and still do exist) in the US. That doesn't mean the government supports them or doesn't arrest them when they're found. Face it, you think that just because the country is predominantly Arab they're full of terrorists, an idea which is simply ridiculous.

When have I EVER said that because the country is Arab that they are full of terrorists? I agree with you that the idea is ridiculous, but I do want to thank you for putting words into my mouth. I never said such a thing. You mention the KKK. Well, what if the US government helped fund those groups? What if the US government transportated them to other countries where they were needed? What if the US government helped relocate KKK members involved in terroristic activities? Would you then have a problem with US for doing those things? The UAE has done those things, so comparing them to the KKK being in the US doesn't make sense.

They're being run by private companies, not the government. The UAE is simply another country, also an ally of ours. To say, "Oh, they can't do this because they're Arabs from the Middle East" is just plain old garden variety racism.

Again, I NEVER said that they couldn't do this because they are Arabs from the Middle East. Again, thanks for putting words into my mouth to make me look like a racist which I find humorous that you would have to step to that level.

If you want to to debate, then thats fine, but I respectfully ask that you do not quote me on something I did not say, and then argue against me on that same quote that I didn't say.

 

[Dennis S.]

Taylor, it might be a problem if we've never before had our ports run by any foreign business. However, as you've pointed out, a British company has been running those ports all this time, and Britain has their terrorist attacks and the terrorists who participated in the WTC attacks used British passports.

There will be no f'n change in security.

We will still be having U.S. Customs check cargo.

We will still be having Transportation Security Agency do background checks.

We will still be having the Department of Homeland Security do port security checks.

There is no "they won't answer to us!" issue. There is no "we can't check their documentation!" issue. There is no "the UAE supports and funds terrorist groups!" issue.


The only problem here is that people are equating Arabs with terrorism, not Muslim radicalists with terrorism.

 

[Y]

NOTE: When I mentioned "Arabs" earlier,
I actually meant "Terrorists" instead of Arabs.

Yes, UAE had some terrorists ties !!!

I'm enclosing these 2 paragraphs copy from CNN:

"The deal raises red flags for some critics because
some of the money that funded the September 11, 2001,
terror attacks on New York and Washington was funneled
through Dubai, which is a major Persian Gulf banking center,
and two of the hijackers were from the UAE.

Dubai also was a midway point for the illegal sale
of nuclear technology to North Korea, Iran and
Libya by Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan, and the
UAE was one of three countries that recognized
the Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate rulers."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/23/port.security/index.html

 

[The*Empress]

UAE hasn't done anything to us yet.

So they are okay.

 

[Beowulf]

"In ordinary cases of foreign direct investment the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) first conducts a 30-day 'review' of the transaction. After the review, the committee makes a judgement as to whether a 45-day 'investigation' is necessary to address national security concerns.
The law, however was amended in 1993. That amendment makes the investigation MANDATORY in cases like the Dubai World Ports transfer..."
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/22/legally-required-investigation/
Just another case of the Bush administration having its head so far up its arse it cannot see anything going on around them. Or, maybe they knew and just don't give a damn.

 

[The*Empress]

Oh well Muslims got all the power and wealthy. Let them take over the country too. Might as well.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

You can join me as an independent! I've never been anything else. :P

Eh. Why not? I might as well since my ideology doesn't really fit either the Democratic party or the Republicans. I'm too liberal for one, and too conservative for the other.

Go figure!

Here's to Independant thinking! :P

 

[Reba]

I think that many of us just want more information, and to know that this situation has been fully checked out. It is very strange that there are people on the Left and Right that support the plan, and people on the Left and Right that are against the plan. What's going on?

 

[Reba]

Connections between Bin Ladin, Taliban, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE/Emirati); from The 9/11 Commission Report:

The Desert Camp, February 1999
Early in 1999, the CIA received reporting that Bin Ladin was spending much
of his time at one of several camps in the Afghan desert south of Kandahar.At
the beginning of February, Bin Ladin was reportedly located in the vicinity of
the Sheikh Ali camp, a desert hunting camp being used by visitors from a Gulf
state. Public sources have stated that these visitors were from the United Arab
Emirates.151

Reporting from the CIA’s assets provided a detailed description of the hunting
camp, including its size, location, resources, and security, as well as of Bin
Ladin’s smaller, adjacent camp.152 Because this was not in an urban area, missiles
launched against it would have less risk of causing collateral damage.On
February 8, the military began to ready itself for a possible strike.153 The next
day, national technical intelligence confirmed the location and description of
the larger camp and showed the nearby presence of an official aircraft of the
United Arab Emirates. But the location of Bin Ladin’s quarters could not be
pinned down so precisely.154 The CIA did its best to answer a host of questions
about the larger camp and its residents and about Bin Ladin’s daily schedule
and routines to support military contingency planning. According to reporting
from the tribals, Bin Ladin regularly went from his adjacent camp to the
larger camp where he visited the Emiratis; the tribals expected him to be at the
hunting camp for such a visit at least until midmorning on February 11.155
Clarke wrote to Berger’s deputy on February 10 that the military was then
doing targeting work to hit the main camp with cruise missiles and should be
in position to strike the following morning.156 Speaker of the House Dennis
Hastert appears to have been briefed on the situation.157
No strike was launched. By February 12 Bin Ladin had apparently moved
on, and the immediate strike plans became moot.158 According to CIA and
Defense officials, policymakers were concerned about the danger that a strike
would kill an Emirati prince or other senior officials who might be with Bin
Ladin or close by.Clarke told us the strike was called off after consultations with
Director Tenet because the intelligence was dubious, and it seemed to Clarke
as if the CIA was presenting an option to attack America’s best counterterrorism
ally in the Gulf.The lead CIA official in the field, Gary Schroen, felt that
the intelligence reporting in this case was very reliable; the Bin Ladin unit chief,
“Mike,” agreed. Schroen believes today that this was a lost opportunity to kill
Bin Ladin before 9/11.159

Even after Bin Ladin’s departure from the area, CIA officers hoped he might
return, seeing the camp as a magnet that could draw him for as long as it was
still set up.The military maintained readiness for another strike opportunity.160
On March 7, 1999, Clarke called a UAE official to express his concerns about
possible associations between Emirati officials and Bin Ladin.Clarke later wrote
in a memorandum of this conversation that the call had been approved at an
interagency meeting and cleared with the CIA.161When the former Bin Ladin
unit chief found out about Clarke’s call, he questioned CIA officials, who
denied having given such a clearance.162 Imagery confirmed that less than a
week after Clarke’s phone call the camp was hurriedly dismantled, and the site
was deserted.163 CIA officers, including Deputy Director for Operations
Pavitt,were irate.“Mike” thought the dismantling of the camp erased a possible
site for targeting Bin Ladin.164

The United Arab Emirates was becoming both a valued counterterrorism
ally of the United States and a persistent counterterrorism problem. From 1999
through early 2001, the United States, and President Clinton personally,pressed
the UAE, one of the Taliban’s only travel and financial outlets to the outside
world, to break off its ties and enforce sanctions, especially those relating to
flights to and from Afghanistan.165 These efforts achieved little before 9/11.
In July 1999,UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Hamdan bin Zayid
threatened to break relations with the Taliban over Bin Ladin.166 The Taliban
did not take him seriously, however. Bin Zayid later told an American diplo-
mat that the UAE valued its relations with the Taliban because the Afghan radicals
offered a counterbalance to “Iranian dangers” in the region, but he also
noted that the UAE did not want to upset the United States.167

 

[Heath]

Connections between Bin Ladin, Taliban, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE/Emirati); from The 9/11 Commission Report:

The Desert Camp, February 1999
Early in 1999, the CIA received reporting that Bin Ladin was spending much
of his time at one of several camps in the Afghan desert south of Kandahar.At
the beginning of February, Bin Ladin was reportedly located in the vicinity of
the Sheikh Ali camp, a desert hunting camp being used by visitors from a Gulf
state. Public sources have stated that these visitors were from the United Arab
Emirates.151

Reporting from the CIA’s assets provided a detailed description of the hunting
camp, including its size, location, resources, and security, as well as of Bin
Ladin’s smaller, adjacent camp.152 Because this was not in an urban area, missiles
launched against it would have less risk of causing collateral damage.On
February 8, the military began to ready itself for a possible strike.153 The next
day, national technical intelligence confirmed the location and description of
the larger camp and showed the nearby presence of an official aircraft of the
United Arab Emirates. But the location of Bin Ladin’s quarters could not be
pinned down so precisely.154 The CIA did its best to answer a host of questions
about the larger camp and its residents and about Bin Ladin’s daily schedule
and routines to support military contingency planning. According to reporting
from the tribals, Bin Ladin regularly went from his adjacent camp to the
larger camp where he visited the Emiratis; the tribals expected him to be at the
hunting camp for such a visit at least until midmorning on February 11.155
Clarke wrote to Berger’s deputy on February 10 that the military was then
doing targeting work to hit the main camp with cruise missiles and should be
in position to strike the following morning.156 Speaker of the House Dennis
Hastert appears to have been briefed on the situation.157
No strike was launched. By February 12 Bin Ladin had apparently moved
on, and the immediate strike plans became moot.158 According to CIA and
Defense officials, policymakers were concerned about the danger that a strike
would kill an Emirati prince or other senior officials who might be with Bin
Ladin or close by.Clarke told us the strike was called off after consultations with
Director Tenet because the intelligence was dubious, and it seemed to Clarke
as if the CIA was presenting an option to attack America’s best counterterrorism
ally in the Gulf.The lead CIA official in the field, Gary Schroen, felt that
the intelligence reporting in this case was very reliable; the Bin Ladin unit chief,
“Mike,” agreed. Schroen believes today that this was a lost opportunity to kill
Bin Ladin before 9/11.159

Even after Bin Ladin’s departure from the area, CIA officers hoped he might
return, seeing the camp as a magnet that could draw him for as long as it was
still set up.The military maintained readiness for another strike opportunity.160
On March 7, 1999, Clarke called a UAE official to express his concerns about
possible associations between Emirati officials and Bin Ladin.Clarke later wrote
in a memorandum of this conversation that the call had been approved at an
interagency meeting and cleared with the CIA.161When the former Bin Ladin
unit chief found out about Clarke’s call, he questioned CIA officials, who
denied having given such a clearance.162 Imagery confirmed that less than a
week after Clarke’s phone call the camp was hurriedly dismantled, and the site
was deserted.163 CIA officers, including Deputy Director for Operations
Pavitt,were irate.“Mike” thought the dismantling of the camp erased a possible
site for targeting Bin Ladin.164

The United Arab Emirates was becoming both a valued counterterrorism
ally of the United States and a persistent counterterrorism problem. From 1999
through early 2001, the United States, and President Clinton personally,pressed
the UAE, one of the Taliban’s only travel and financial outlets to the outside
world, to break off its ties and enforce sanctions, especially those relating to
flights to and from Afghanistan.165 These efforts achieved little before 9/11.
In July 1999,UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Hamdan bin Zayid
threatened to break relations with the Taliban over Bin Ladin.166 The Taliban
did not take him seriously, however. Bin Zayid later told an American diplo-
mat that the UAE valued its relations with the Taliban because the Afghan radicals
offered a counterbalance to “Iranian dangers” in the region, but he also
noted that the UAE did not want to upset the United States.167

I remember the story about the UAE visiting Osama Bin Laden and U.S. intelligence was about ready to kill Osama Bin Laden when they saw the UAE airlines parked right there. The U.S. never got to carry out the orders because of that. I would of have killed Osama Bin Laden right there and the UAE government can crybaby and complain all they want. The U.S. had a reward out on Osama Bin Laden's head and the UAE knew where he was the whole time??? They did not even tell the U.S.A. where Osama Bin Laden was??? so much for cooperation and now I hear about the ports being controlled by the UAE. am I supposed to think? Reba, That was a good post !!!!