News Control of US ports: Bush selling out on US security?

[Ivan Seeking]

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is defending approval of a $6.8 billion sale that gives a company in the United Arab Emirates control over operations at six major American ports, even as one senator sought a new ban on companies owned by governments overseas in some U.S. shipping operations.

..."The potential threat to our country is not imagined, it is real," Republican Rep. Mark Foley of Florida said Thursday in a House speech. [continued]

http://www.abqtrib.com/albq/nw_national/article/0,2564,ALBQ_19860_4475139,00.html

This is simply beyond belief!

 

[loseyourname]

You know, even if these senators are right, they sound awfully racist in now trying to block acquisition by foreign companies, considering the ports before were under the control of a British company and they didn't seem to care then.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, whatever the past, this is clearly a matter of national security today. In fact securing our ports is one of the biggest and most difficult problems that we face. And we want to hand over control to a foreign entity?

 

[loseyourname]

It just caught my eye. How can we be handing over control to a foreign entity when they were already under the control of a foreign entity? It's not like national security just now became a concern. The only difference now is that an anglo-saxon entity is selling to an arabic entity, and the senate doesn't trust arabs.

Anyway, that's certainly the way it looks.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You seem to be worried about the past. The issue is national security today. Should we throw out all other post-911 considerations as well?

Outsourcing the operations of our largest ports to a country with a dubious record on terrorism is a homeland security and commerce accident waiting to happen

http://www.house.gov/shays/news/2006/february/febports.htm

And I think this should absolutely be done by a US owned and based company.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I would like to know how Bush is acting in our best interest here; how is this a good idea wrt our national security? And since this is clearly not in our best interest, whose interests are his priorety?

 

[edward]

The same UAE company, Dubai Ports World, is taking over South Koreas newest and largest port.

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/business/2006/January/business_January272.xml&section=business&col=

I think The Bush administration is in favor of this because UAE holds billions of dollars worth of T bills. Plus Bush seems to have a great hand holding kinship with wealthy Arabs.

Dick Cheney is most likely the real point man here.

Prime Projects International (PPI) of Dubai, is a major, but low-profile, subcontractor to Halliburton's multi-billion-dollar deal with the Pentagon to provide support services to U.S. forces.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/26660

edit:
And last year the same company bought American owned CSX World Terminals.

The deal makes Dubai Ports one of the six largest operators of terminals in the world and gives it a presence in Asia for the first time.

In January CSX World Terminals acquired a majority of Asia Container Terminals, which included one of the biggest container terminals in Hong Kong. A month earlier CSX (NYSE:CSX) had announced plans to sell CSX World Terminals to Dubai Ports International.

What the Hell is going on? Islamics will now own the worlds largest dirty bomb delivery network.

And we can't forget this:

After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S., the UAE was identified as a major financial center used by al-Qaeda in transferring money to the hijackers. The nation immediately cooperated with the U.S., freezing accounts tied to suspected terrorists and strongly clamping down on money laundering.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108074.html

 

[russ_watters]

It just caught my eye. How can we be handing over control to a foreign entity when they were already under the control of a foreign entity? It's not like national security just now became a concern. The only difference now is that an anglo-saxon entity is selling to an arabic entity, and the senate doesn't trust arabs.

Anyway, that's certainly the way it looks.

Yeah, it looks like a politician blustering over nothing to me.

Well, whatever the past, this is clearly a matter of national security today. In fact securing our ports is one of the biggest and most difficult problems that we face. And we want to hand over control to a foreign entity?

[separate post]And since this is clearly not in our best interest, whose interests are his priorety?

How is it a matter of national security? How is it not in our best interes. Heck, how is it even a chang from previous policy? It isn't like the Coast Guard is being disbanded. The Coast Guard still has primary responsibility for port security now, previously when the operations were under British corporate control, and still will later if the UAE takes over. The analogy made by the senator about turning over border control or customs is not correct. In fact, it's not really an analogy, since customs is one of the relevant agencies for securing our ports and it isn't(wasn't) being turned over to foreign control.

This isn't like the Panama Canal where the land itself used to be ours and when our lease was up it went to someone else. These companies are just running the day-to-day operations and they still have considerable government oversight.

 

[loseyourname]

You seem to be worried about the past. The issue is national security today. Should we throw out all other post-911 considerations as well?

But the ports were all British-owned post 9/11, which is really my point. This isn't about the past; it's about the present. In fact, until the sale is complete, the ports are still under British control. I just can't see the reason for concern arising now and not at some previous time unless the concern is solely over the new owners being Arabs.

I understand your concern, but why voice it now when the ports have been under foreign control for a long time? Something tells me the senators do not honestly believe that a multinational based in the UAE is more likely to sell secrets to terrorists on how to bypass security and customs (if the company that owns the ports even has such secrets, which I also doubt) than a multinational based in the UK. They're just trying to get headlines and playing off of national anti-Arab xenophobia in the wake of a terrorist attack carried out by Arabs. I would even be willing to bet that some of these were the same people crying out over not approving the sale of Unocal to the chinese company.

 

[edward]

I can't believe the total lack of knowledge of national security that I see in the last several posts.

Do you remember the words in the final sentence of the 911 commission??

As best as I can rememer it was:

"The final result is that it was a lack of imagination."

Nothing has changed.

 

[russ_watters]

Show us some imagination then, edward - just saying we're wrong is not an argument.

 

[edward]

Show us some imagination then, edward - just saying we're wrong is not an argument.

You only have to read the links. They now own both ends of shipping control. The especially dangerous area is shipping from southeast asia to the USA. If you can not see a potential danger there you are not really looking.

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the FBI has said the money for the strikes was transferred to the hijackers primarily through the UAE's banking system, and much of the operational planning for the attacks took place inside the UAE.

Many of the hijackers traveled to the U.S. through the UAE. Also, the hijacker who steered United Airlines flight into the World Trade Center's south tower, Marwan al-Shehhi, was born in the UAE.

After the attacks, U.S. Treasury Department officials complained about a lack of co-operation by the UAE and other Arab countries trying to track Osama bin Laden's bank accounts

You mentioned the Coast Guard:

Stephen Flynn, a former Coast Guard Commander and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, has spent the last two and a half years studying the security, or lack of it, at U.S. seaports. And he says shipping containers are the weak link.

"We have about six million of them that arrived in the United States last year," says Flynn. "And really, nobody can say with any confidence what's in them."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/25/60minutes/main565180.shtml

 

[loseyourname]

How does who owns the ports make any difference to what's in the containers? The companies that are importing and exporting goods have not changed either location or ownership, and the people who do whatever inspecting goes on will not change, either. We're reading the same things you are, and all I see is guilt by assocation. People in the UAE were involved in 9/11, and this multinational is based in the UAE. Should we have stopped Chicago from being the nation's center of meatpacking because it was also the center of Al Capone's operations?

If you can show me how an ownership change for the ports will also result in a change in what is being shipped, where it's being shipped from, or how security is handled, then I'll follow your concerns. As of right now, all I've seen is innuendo. Even if you're trying to implicate the UAE government as being complicit in Al Qaeda attacks, is this multinational state-owned or controlled?

 

[russ_watters]

You only have to read the links. They now own both ends of shipping control. The especially dangerous area is shipping from southeast asia to the USA. If you can not see a potential danger there you are not really looking.

Or maybe you're seeing something that isn't there. If there is something there, tell me what it is!

 

[SOS2008]

The United Arab Emirates is considered a U.S. ally. However, as this CFR Task Force report made clear in 2004, the UAE was used as a financial and operational base by some of the 9/11 hijackers. That fact has officials in these cities asking questions. The New York Times says the move takes the Bush administration's "laxness to a new level," while Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) expresses similar security concerns on NPR. Schumer and other lawmakers are urging the White House to take a closer look at the sale (WashPost).

The uproar over the Dubai Ports World purchase is only the latest to focus on foreign ownership of vital infrastructure. The U.S. Congress last year overwhelmingly recommended against the Bush administration granting permission for a Chinese company, CNOOC, to purchase Unocal (Washington Quarterly), a U.S. oil services company. In 1999, when Hutchison Whampoa, a Chinese company, took control of the Panama Canal from the United States at the beginning of 2000, retired U.S. admiral and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Thomas H. Moorer warned of a "nuclear Pearl Harbor."

Even in American hands, U.S. ports suffer from the "almost complete absence of any security oversight in the loading and transporting of a box from its point of origin to its final destination" said Flynn in his recent testimony before the U.S. Senate. After 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security did create the "Container Security Initiative," but an April 2005 Governmental Accountability Office report questions the program's ability to improve cargo security.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9901/uae_port_purchase_raises_fears.html

So it's not just an issue of Homeland Security, but national security in general regarding U.S. independence from foreign control of infrastructure vital to our country. It's bad enough we depend on other countries for oil, stability of our currency, and national debt. Terrorism is the least of my worries in comparison.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well this won't stand and it will be obvious to most of us why: This is inherently a ludicrous idea and Bush will rightly look a bit like a traitor to most people.

This is an issue of access and control - access and control create opportunity. It is really very simple.

One really starts to wonder who is on what side here: Spy on US citizens without oversight for reasons of national security, but hand over the ports to foreign agencies; and to a company from a nation with a dubious record on terror, no less.

 

[russ_watters]

Well this won't stand and it will be obvious to most of us why: This is inherently a ludicrous idea and Bush will rightly look a bit like a traitor to most people.

This is an issue of access and control - access and control create opportunity. It is really very simple.

One really starts to wonder who is on what side here: Spy on US citizens without oversight for reasons of national security, but hand over the ports to foreign agencies; and to a company from a nation with a dubious record on terror, no less.

Ivan, none of that is an argument for why you think this idea is "inherently ludicrous". Just saying it is is not an argument.

 

[russ_watters]

No one wants to read links or do research of their own. They want to dismiss everything out of hand with antagonistic one-liners.

Don't make that erroneous assumption (and personal attack). Where do you think I got the quote I posted from the article if I didn't read the article?

So it's not just an issue of Homeland Security, but national security in general regarding U.S. independence from foreign control of infrastructure vital to our country. It's bad enough we depend on other countries for oil, stability of our currency, and national debt. Terrorism is the least of my worries in comparison.

That's fine, but that is not what the Senator was talking about.

 

[SOS2008]

Don't make that erroneous assumption. Where do you think I got the quote I posted from the article if I didn't read the article?.

It was a general comment about behavior in many threads.

That's fine, but that is not what the Senator was talking about.

The Senator and what he said is only part of the issue. I don't see why that is all that should be considered if there are additional important ramifications involved.

 

[edward]

If you can show me how an ownership change for the ports will also result in a change in what is being shipped, where it's being shipped from, or how security is handled, then I'll follow your concerns. As of right now, all I've seen is innuendo. Even if you're trying to implicate the UAE government as being complicit in Al Qaeda attacks, is this multinational state-owned or controlled?

What is being shipped dosen't matter until the possiblity of a little something extra being put aboard the ship enters the picture.

Under current law the foreign companies can employ security workers from anywhere and no U.S. citizenship or background check is required. I wasn't worried much about the British security at the British owned ports in the USA.
But with the possiblility of Islamic security personnel working the U.S. ports, especially since they will now be working on both ends of the supply system, yea I have a big problem with that.

WASHINGTON (AP) - A New Jersey congressman said Saturday he wants to require that security officials at U.S. ports be American citizens to prevent overseas companies operating shipping facilities here from hiring foreigners in such sensitive positions.

http://www.startribune.com/587/story/256503.html

I post the above link in lieu of tracking down the location of the exact law.
I presume what I stated about the law is correct, otherwise the congressman would not be wanting such a requirement.

 

[loseyourname]

Under current law the foreign companies can employ security workers from anywhere and no U.S. citizenship or background check is required. I wasn't worried much about the British security at the British owned ports in the USA.
But with the possiblility of Islamic security personnel working the U.S. ports, especially since they will now be working on both ends of the supply system, yea I have a big problem with that.

Okay, I see that concern. Then I ask why you think this is going to happen. I do not have the official payroll slips, but I can only imagine that US port security (that which is not carried out by the Coast Guard or Port Authority polices or other state organizations) is staffed by Americans, not by people that are either Brits or Arabs, the reason being that the ports are located in the US, and staff is presumably not going to commute across an ocean to work. Also, why do you think the staff is likely to change at all? This UAE-based multinational is something of a holding company, right? They'll probably install new management, but why would they layoff all of the currently employed security personnel only to hire and train new staff? And why would they hire Arabs? How many Arabs even live in these port cities and are both qualified for these positions and in need of employment?

And isn't it a little racist to imply that, just because someone is an Arab, he is more likely than previous personnel (who, as you stated above, were not screened and did not have to be citizens) to be involved in a terrorist plot? Heck, it even seems to me, with the racial profiling now occurring in the HSD, that an Arab involved in a terrorist plot would be more likely to be red-flagged and caught than a non-Arab involved in a similar plot.

As to the concern with what is being placed in the shipping containers: again, a legitimate concern, but why is that increased now? The ships are still going to go from point A to point B, correct? They're not now being rerouted through the UAE before being sent on to the US, are they? If the concern is that the security personnel themselves are going to place a device of some sort in the containers, why would they do that? Devices are placed in containers to be smuggled in. If the security personnel already possessed these devices/materials/whatever, they wouldn't need to smuggled in again. Once these things are in the country, it's best to just transport them by automobile.

I post the above link in lieu of tracking down the location of the exact law. I presume what I stated about the law is correct, otherwise the congressman would not be wanting such a requirement.

I agree with this concern. It is, however, a good reason to change the law, not to disallow the acquiring of British holdings by Arab companies.

 

[Moonbear]

One thing is certain, there's a lot of politic-ing involved in this acquisition. A U.S. company currently in partnership with the British-based firm is fighting this with regard to the port in Miami.

Firm Sues to Block Foreign Port Takeover
Email this Story

Feb 18, 9:08 PM (ET)

By TED BRIDIS
WASHINGTON (AP) - A company at the Port of Miami has sued to block the takeover of shipping operations there by a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates. It is the first American courtroom effort to capsize a $6.8 billion sale already embroiled in a national debate over security risks at six major U.S. ports affected by the deal.
The Miami company, a subsidiary of Eller & Company Inc., presently is a business partner with London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which Dubai Ports World purchased last week. In a lawsuit in Florida circuit court, the Miami subsidiary said that under the sale it will become an "involuntary partner" with Dubai's government and it may seek more than $10 million in damages.
The Miami subsidiary, Continental Stevedoring & Terminals Inc., said the sale to Dubai was prohibited under its partnership agreement with the British firm and "may endanger the national security of the United States." It asked a judge to block the takeover and said it does not believe the company, Florida or the U.S. government can ensure Dubai Ports World's compliance with American security rules.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20060219/D8FRT6F00.html

Since the question was raised earlier (unless I've misunderstood), at least according to this article, and contained within the quoted portion, this company is state-owned by the UAE.

I have to admit ignorance on this issue, as I was unaware that our ports were run by foreign companies already. What is the reasoning for putting our ports under management of foreign companies rather than keeping them controlled by the U.S.? Do we just have a lack of U.S. companies willing to take control of them, or is there some financial reason or foreign-relations incentive to handing the profits being made at our ports over to companies based in other countries?

Another somewhat naive question on this issue...if our ports are controlled by foreign companies (this could apply to the ports of any nation I suppose, unless we have substantially different laws and regulations regarding this), and for some reason, any reason, diplomatic relations with that foreign entity went kablooey (not even necessarily war or anything that extreme, but let's just say we were no longer allies with the country where that company was based), does that give that company, if aligning with the politics of their home country, the power to shut down our ports and not permit the ships in or out? I'm not talking about what happens to the containers in getting through customs or security issues, but simply allowing ships to dock and unload. If they could refuse to allow ships into our ports, what protection is there if that were to happen? Does the US government, or state or local government of the port cities, have the ultimate right to toss the management company out and take over control of the ports if such a dire circumstance should ever take place? So, I guess the overall question for me is, what exactly does this company, any company running our ports, have responsibility over, and what safeguards are in place to ensure they don't have the power to shut down our ports and cut off our supplies? Without knowing this, I can't form any kind of informed opinion on this issue.

 

[Cyrus]

The US government can take over the Port company if it comes to it. They could not shut down our ports whenever they felt like it, nor would they. They would loose so much money that they would go bankrupt.

 

[Moonbear]

The US government can take over the Port company if it comes to it. They could not shut down our ports whenever they felt like it, nor would they. They would loose so much money that they would go bankrupt.

Do you know that and have a source to back it up, or do you just think that's the case?

 

[sid_galt]

Should we have stopped Chicago from being the nation's center of meatpacking because it was also the center of Al Capone's operations?

No but would you have stopped the meatpacking operations had Al Capone been incharge of it?
I don't think it is practical and moral in the long run to support a people who are out to murder us.

 

[Cyrus]

A source is not necessary. Do you honestly think the US government would let its economy come to a hault? It would freeze the assets of the UAE just like it did to Iran in 79' and put it under US control, most likely selling it to the highest US bidder.

 

[edward]

The US government can take over the Port company if it comes to it. They could not shut down our ports whenever they felt like it, nor would they. They would loose so much money that they would go bankrupt.

How much would it take to drive the UAE into bankruptsy?

Do you think the U.S. Government could seize and reopen the ports overnight?? Give us a time frame and some links to where the funding would come from.

 

[Cyrus]

What funding? You don't need funding to freeze the assets of another country.

 

[edward]

A source is not necessary. Do you honestly think the US government would let its economy come to a hault? It would freeze the assets of the UAE just like it did to Iran in 79' and put it under US control, most likely selling it to the highest US bidder.

This is not Iran in 1979. This is America 2006.
Sure we could reposess our own ports, but at what cost? And again we would have a signifcant time frame to resume normal operations.

I can't seem to separate the security issue from this. The New York Port Authority is very much against this sale. One of the twin towers was taken down by a citizen of the UAE on 9/11.

We are at war with two Islamic countries and threatening a third. They on the other hand are screaming "kill Americans". Allowing an Islamic nation to purchase 6 of our east coast ports makes no sense at all in light of the billions we are spending on home land security.

 

[edward]

What funding? You don't need funding to freeze the assets of another country.

But you do need funding to get the ports operating again! And selling to the highest bidder is not going to happen overnight.

 

[Cyrus]

Explain where you need that money to get it operating again? You already have US workers working there. They are already trained to do their jobs. The structure is already there, and you have the old British company that is familiar with the running of operations to take over if they had to sell it back. Yeah, the people that lost the bids to the UAE would buy it within the hour, not overnight, your right my bad.

 

[Moonbear]

A source is not necessary. Do you honestly think the US government would let its economy come to a hault? It would freeze the assets of the UAE just like it did to Iran in 79' and put it under US control, most likely selling it to the highest US bidder.

A source is necessary, because I honestly don't know the answer to that question, and it sounds like you're just guessing at an answer as well. While I would like to believe there is some sort of safeguard in place, I'd like to know what it is and how it works, and how certain it really is. If they have the ability to stop the ships from getting to port, they hold the trump card. I'm not even specifically talking about the UAE here, but ANY foreign company. Currently, British companies run the ports...what if we really ticked off the Brits?

 

[russ_watters]

It was a general comment about behavior in many threads.

Well then we have two possibilities -

1. The comment was directed at myself or loseyourname (since we are the only ones on the opposite side of the debate from you) (unlikely since the comment was made in response to a post against yours).
2. The comment was not relevant to this thread.

Which is it?

 

[russ_watters]

This is not Iran in 1979. This is America 2006.
Sure we could reposess our own ports...

Whoa, hold on. Let's make sure we all understand the issue here: We're not talking about the ownership of the port itself, we're talking about the operation of the ports.

 

[edward]

And isn't it a little racist to imply that, just because someone is an Arab, he is more likely than previous personnel (who, as you stated above, were not screened and did not have to be citizens) to be involved in a terrorist plot? Heck, it even seems to me, with the racial profiling now occurring in the HSD, that an Arab involved in a terrorist plot would be more likely to be red-flagged and caught than a non-Arab involved in a similar plot.

Please don't pull the race card here. This isn't about race and you know it.
We are currently fighting a war on terrorism againts Islam, not a race.
Thousnds of Americans were killed on 9/11 and thousands more have been killed since then. Hint: they were not killed by Catholics or Hindus.

 

[edward]

Whoa, hold on. Let's make sure we all understand the issue here: We're not talking about the ownership of the port itself, we're talking about the operation of the ports.

He who operates controlls the security. Different entities own the ports in differen't areas. For instance the Port of Tampa is owned by the state of Florida.

 

[edward]

DP World said it won approval from a secretive U.S. government panel that considers security risks of foreign companies buying or investing in American industry.

The U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States "thoroughly reviewed the potential transaction and concluded they had no objection," the company said in a statement to the Associated Press.

The committee earlier agreed to consider concerns about the deal as expressed by a Miami-based company, Eller & Co., according to Eller's lawyer, Michael Kreitzer. Eller is a business partner with the British shipping giant but was not in the running to buy the ports company.

The committee, which could have recommended that President Bush block the purchase, includes representatives from the Departments of Treasury, Defense, Justice, Commerce, State and Homeland Security.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.port12feb12,0,2948167.story?coll=bal-attack-headlines

Anyone know exactly who sits on this committee?? Chertoff would probably be one. If the committee is primarily made up of political appointees I have another problem with this sale. Bush's political appointees have not had a very good track record.

They also have a strong incentive to give Bush what he asks for.
And why the secrecy? The sale was completed before the general news media was aware of it.

I say general news media because I would imagine that some trade journals would have known.

Is this all about being a payoff to the UAE for allowing us to have a military presence there?? Or is the administration trying to show other Islamic nations that if they tow the line (our line) they too may have financial opportunities in the global market?

I have a gut feeling that there is much more involved here than just the sale of American port operations to a foreign country.

 

[edward]

Explain where you need that money to get it operating again? You already have US workers working there. They are already trained to do their jobs. The structure is already there, and you have the old British company that is familiar with the running of operations to take over if they had to sell it back. Yeah, the people that lost the bids to the UAE would buy it within the hour, not overnight, your right my bad.

Excuse me, but just how much experience have you had with large industrial organizations? oops I forgot you hate emoticons

Nothing ,absolutely nothing, about the business world happens overnight. especially if there has been a total shut down of operations. Company lawyers alone can take months to plan; a sale , purchase or take over. Youthfull exuberance is wonderful, but it is not necessarily correct.

 

[Moonbear]

Whoa, hold on. Let's make sure we all understand the issue here: We're not talking about the ownership of the port itself, we're talking about the operation of the ports.

Russ, this is what I'm struggling to understand, and would appreciate if you could elaborate here. What exactly does "operation" of the ports entail? I know they don't own them, but operation gives them some control over something, but just what is that something, what sort of contractual agreement goes along with it, what sort of oversight is there, and what would be required to revoke their authority over operations, and how quickly could that be done if such a need arose? This isn't a single port where shipping could be diverted to a different port on an emergency basis if a problem arose with the operations at one port, this is quite a few ports all on one coast. Without knowing what's involved in the operations and the safeguards in place, I'm not comfortable that ANY single country or company has so much of a stake in so many of our ports all on the same coast. Even if it were a single company based in the U.S., I would be uncomfortable having something as important as our ports under control of a limited number of people/companies. It seems important that there be some safeguards in place to ensure that anything even as simple as a contract dispute with employees that leads to a strike not be able to shut down the majority of shipping coming into the east coast. Diversification of who runs the operations seems to be a safer approach in ensuring shipping doesn't come to a screeching halt and no one entity has too much power over that.

My discomfort comes from a lack of knowledge here, and if anyone even knows where I can start looking to become more informed on this, I'd really like to be pointed in the right direction. As I find answers, maybe I'll find reassurance that this wouldn't happen, or maybe I'll be even more concerned with lack of such safeguards, but at least I'll know the real issues that need focus.

 

[Art]

The port authorities (owners) are responsible for loading and unloading shipments and also storage. They also have ownership of site security at the port.
It is not unrealistic to suppose that if one or more members of senior management wanted to bring something into America surreptitiously they could do so.

This is already the case with regard to drugs and the same loopholes could be created and then exploited by terrorists.

 

[edward]

Chertoffs' point of view:

The discussions are classified. I can’t get into the specifics here…As far as my agency is concerned, port security really rests principally with the Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection.

http://www.thinkprogress.org/

On the other hand:

But maritime security experts say the Coast Guard should be given even more resources, considering the threat America faces at sea and in its ports. They say that while the Coast Guard is performing well with limited resources, America will get the bang for its homeland security buck by investing more in the service.

 

[Cyrus]

http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/07/news/companies/halliburton_iraq_con/

Halliburton Co.'s $7 billion contract, awarded without competition, to make emergency repairs to Iraq's oil infrastructure also gives it the power to run all phases of Iraq's oil industry, according to U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.

It's previous actions of the US government that I base my assumptions on.
Do you think something similar would not happen to our port system Edward?

 

[edward]

http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/07/news/companies/halliburton_iraq_con/

It's previous actions of the US government that I base my assumptions on.

That is pretty much oranges and apples. Halliburton just has dam good lawyers to write their contracts. BTW It is almost three years later and Halliburton has not been successful in producing any significant amount of oil in Iraq.

Do you think something similar would not happen to our port system Edward?

No. I think that someing much worse may happen. My concerns are primarily about security. Our little off to the side discussion got started when I answered a question posted by Moonbear when she was concerend about the possiblity of UAE shutting down the ports.

What if an Islamic country with a dubious record on terrorism was going to operate six of our largest airport authorities? How would you feel about that?

 

[Moonbear]

Chertoffs' point of view:http://www.thinkprogress.org/

On the other hand:

The problem with secondary sources like that is you never know what they left out where those ellipses are in the quote. I can't find a CNN transcript of the interview cited there, but I did find a transcript of Chertoff's comments on Meet The Press (I prefer sticking with unedited versions to find out what people really said).

This is the beginning of his comments.

SEC’Y CHERTOFF: Well, let me make it very clear, first of all. We have a very disciplined process, it’s a classified process, for reviewing any acquisition by a foreign company of assets that we consider relevant to national security. That process worked here. Without getting into classified information, what we typically do if there are concerns is we build in certain conditions, or requirements, that the company has to agree to to make sure we address the national security concerns. And here the Coast Guard and Customs and border protection really play the leading role for our department in terms of designing those conditions and making sure that they’re obeyed.

The full transcript of the show, including this interview is found here:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11363075/page/3/
That link should take you directly to page 3, where the issue of the ports being operated by a UAE company is discussed and you can read the remainder of the comments and the questions they were answering.

I thought it was noteworthy that in another story posted on CNN's site, referring to Chertoff's comments on the Late Edition (the same interview cited by that blog), he is reported as saying:

At least one Senate oversight hearing is planned for later this month.

"Congress is welcome to look at this and can get classified briefings," Chertoff told CNN's "Late Edition."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/19/port.security.ap/index.html

So, this tells me that the members of Congress blustering over the secrecy are doing just that, blustering. Whether or not there are legitimate concerns, they DO have access to the classified information the rest of the public does not have access to, so if they're concerned or have a problem with this, or complaining about the secrecy, they better get their butts in gear and request those documents and do their job of representing their constituents and making sure everything is in line as the DHS is saying it is.

 

[Cyrus]

That is pretty much oranges and apples. Halliburton just has dam good lawyers to write their contracts. BTW It is almost three years later and Halliburton has not been successful in producing any significant amount of oil in Iraq.

The amount of oil they have been successful in producing is not my point of the link. The point was to show you that the US government can, in a time of crisis, award a contract to new corporation without there even being a bidding process.

That is pretty much oranges and apples. Halliburton just has dam good lawyers to write their contracts. BTW It is almost three years later and Halliburton has not been successful in producing any significant amount of oil in Iraq.

Ok, let me give you my opinion on this issue:

There is more that goes on with the nations of the Middle East than you realize. Your statement,

Please don't pull the race card here. This isn't about race and you know it.
We are currently fighting a war on terrorism against Islam, not a race.

shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the relations between the United States and the Islamic countries. First, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are two of our biggest allies in the Middle East when it comes to counter-terrorism intelligence. So your sweeping generalization is factually incorrect. To be precise, we are in an asymmetric war with radical Islamists who lack well defined national boarders. Donald Rumsfeld himself said the other day on Charlie Rose that the way to win the war on terrorism is not through the military; rather, it is through intelligence. This means the US cannot win the war on terror alone. It is a fundamental necessity to have foreign countries participate in the intelligence gathering and sharing. Now, why did I go off on this tangent? I went here because the United Arab Emirates is not under the governments watch list for state sponsored terrorism. The statements you have made in regard to "one of the terrorists came from the UAE" holds no weight. Furthermore, the best people who can make the judgment on our security with the UAE are the state department, the department of homeland security, and the NSA. If these government organizations, whose job it is to monitor and work with countries like the UAE on a daily basis see no reason to block the bidding of said country, then I surely see no weight in your objections. Clearly, I agree with your wanting to side with caution; however, the best people to answer your questions with respect to security are the aforementioned government organizations. Now, there has been a disconnect between the NSA and the White House when it comes to how reported intelligence has been selectively manipulated. For this reason, I believe the best thing in this situation would be to have to NSA, CIA, etc put on the record an official overall approval or disapproval of the UAE takeover. By doing so, it helps to eliminate the possibility of the White House manipulating the recommendations of the NSA, et al as they have been known to do in the past.

 

[edward]

So, this tells me that the members of Congress blustering over the secrecy are doing just that, blustering. Whether or not there are legitimate concerns, they DO have access to the classified information the rest of the public does not have access to, so if they're concerned or have a problem with this, or complaining about the secrecy, they better get their butts in gear and request those documents and do their job of representing their constituents and making sure everything is in line as the DHS is saying it is.

The problem congress has with "the" secrecy, and this is a bipartisian complaint, is that they only found out about it after the fact. The sale was already completed.

"I'm aware of the conditions and they relate entirely to how the company carries out its procedures, but it doesn't go to who they hire, or how they hire people," Rep. Peter King, a New York Republican, said.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/19/port.security.ap/

Why was this such a secret deal that even the congress didn't know.

 

[Moonbear]

The problem congress has with "the" secrecy, and this is a bipartisian complaint, is that they only found out about it after the fact. The sale was already completed.

It doesn't sound like a done-deal yet to me. Have I missed something? At what stage of the process did they find out and how did they find out?

Edit: You added more to your post after I quoted, but you're citing the same article I did. I don't see anything there that clarifies when Congress was told, just that King learned about it from "senior White House officials." So, someone in the White House informed Congress.

From the description of the take-over, it sounds like a typical corporate merger...this isn't a new company replacing a previous company, this is a new company that took over the previous company. Do we have any right to meddle in the British company's business deals to block such a corporate take-over? The more I'm reading, the more complicated it's sounding. Since the British company already was running operations, and the UAE company took over the British company, it's really not quite the same situation as a UAE company coming in and out-bidding the British company. The British company doesn't exist as a British company anymore, so it's possible we were simply stuck with the choice of letting the UAE company take over or have nobody running the show and close our ports. What a sticky situation! It seems more reason to get some sort of back-up plan in place.

I wonder how long the contract is with the UAE company? Since it sounds like it wasn't really a choice or decision to bring them in, but that they just took over the British company already operating the ports, I wonder if a new contract term was negotiated, or if they just complete the period of the prior contract...whatever that would be.

 

[Cyrus]

Dubai Ports World has said it intends to "maintain and, where appropriate, enhance current security arrangements." The UAE's foreign minister has described his country as an important U.S. ally in fighting terrorism.

"I would hope that our friends in Abu Dhabi would not be offended by the fact that in our democracy, we debate these things," Rice said in the interview with the Arab journalists.

That should speak for itself. Last two paragraphs of your own link Edward.

While it says:

Critics have cited the UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks of September 11, 2001. In addition, they contend the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist

It does NOT say this happened with the government of the UAE knowledge or approval.

It even says:

"Congress is welcome to look at this and can get classified briefings," Chertoff told CNN's "Late Edition."

So they should stop pretending they do not have access to the same information.

 

[edward]

Ok, let me give you my opinion on this issue:

There is more that goes on with the nations of the Middle East than you realize. Your statement, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the relations between the United States and the Islamic countries. First, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are two of our biggest allies in the Middle East when it comes to counter-terrorism intelligence.

CYRUS
I am well aware of whom our allies are. But it was not until 2005 that UAE ceased to recognize the Taliban as an authority. They also use the petrodollar instead of the euro dollar. So do the Saudi's, and we really need for them to do that. But I could never say that in an unstable middle east that antything is guaranteed.

For this reason, I believe the best thing in this situation would be to have to NSA, CIA, etc put on the record an official overall approval or disapproval of the UAE takeover. By doing so, it helps to eliminate the possibility of the White House manipulating the recommendations of the NSA, et al as they have been known to do in the past.

That is the most sensible thing that I have heard yet. Although the White House has become very adept at manipulating agency heads who are political appointees.

The secret committee of twelve is headed by the Treasury Department?? Homeland security, as was mentioned in Chertoff's statement, approves of the sale. But in the same release Chertoff said that: "from a security point of view, they depend on the boarder patrol and Coast Guard." Those agencies already have their hands full.

 

[edward]

That should speak for itself. Last two paragraphs of your own link Edward.

Nice job of cherry picking. I posted seven links.

It does NOT say this happened with the government of the UAE knowledge or approval.

It does not say that they did not have knowledge or approval give approval either.

it even says,
"Congress is welcome to look at this and can get classified briefings," Chertoff told CNN's "Late Edition."

So why did the administration wait so long, why did they wait until after the sale was made and congress found out on their own when a Florida company, a Partner of the British company, filed a lawsuit.

So they should stop pretending they do not have access to the same information.

It was only as of today that congress was told by Chertoff that they could have access to the information. And that information can be filtered before it goes to the congress.

WHAT WAS THE BIG REASON FOR THE SECRECY?

Why did the adminstraion wait until congress was chasing around like a monkey after a coconut, until they told congress anything at all??

By WILL LESTER
Associated Press Writer

FEB. 19 5:53 P.M. ET
U.S. terms for approving an Arab company's takeover of operations at six major American ports are insufficient to guard against terrorist infiltration, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee said Sunday.

"I'm aware of the conditions and they relate entirely to how the company carries out its procedures, but it doesn't go to who they hire, or how they hire people," Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., told The Associated Press.