UAE to take over Control of 6 U.S. ports

[Fitz505]

A secret government panel with the Bush administrations approval is going to allow the UAE to take over control of 6 major US ports. They want to know what kind of books I'm checking out of the library, but they don't have a problem with a country that was the base of operations for 911, a country that the last I read, still wants to destroy Isreal, a major transfer point for smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran & North Korea. Even House Republicans are scratching their heads over this one as it appears the Bush administration is going to fight to push the deal through.
I'm pushing 60 and I'll admit there are times when I'm glad I'm not younger. There are times when I'm unsure that this country is going to exist in it's present form in as short a time as a decade away.

Fitz

[tycho102]

I have a problem with this one. Mostly because of the administration side of the company, not even to mention the security or intentions of said company. Even if every longshoreman was required to pass an FBI background check before being employed, I would still have a problem with this issue.

I have a problem with Saudia Arabian companies owning 50% of several refineries as well, but I'm prepared to deal with 50% and a close watch on their conduct. I would be prepared to deal with 50% and a close watch on the United Arab Emrites conduct, as well.

100%, no.
75%, no.

50%, maybe.

[blue3golf]

Instead of giving the contract to some country overseas, ANY COUNTRY, because they're cheaper they should get unemployed AMERICANS to do it. I would bet anything that there are qualified people right here to do the job. I'm sick of hearing about unemployment and no jobs from the government when they're selling them off to other countries.

[bradclark1]

You guys forget that the American goverment is for sale. Dollars talk patriotism walks. Thats why this kind of stuff is tried to be slithered through.

[JSLTIGER]

Remember that governments buy things from the lowest bidder. Whoever can do what the government wants for the least amount of money will win the contracts.

[Sea Demon]

JSLTIGER and bradclark1, I understand what you say, and I am also disheartened by this trend. I've tried to tell myself that the buck stops where national security is concerned. I only wish the administration would tell us why this is proper. So far, they have not. And this port security situation looks very questionable.

[Kapitan]

saudi arabia is a good country not many arab countrys allow westerners to use thier millatery facilities, but after my mother visited saudi she liked it.

[bradclark1]

saudi arabia is a good country not many arab countrys allow westerners to use thier millatery facilities, but after my mother visited saudi she liked it.

Saudi Arabia let in the western military for one reason only and that was for the protection of Saudi Arabia. They didn't do it to be good guys.

[Fitz505]

The really sad thing is, even if they get the 45 day delay that the House and Senate is pressing for (which Bush says he'll veto), in 45 days, the American public will have completely forgotten about it, while we sit on our supersized fat asses, waiting for the next brain dead reallity program to show up on TV.
What I haven't heard mentioned much is that this isn't a private company, but a government controlled company. Essentially, you have a foreign government, in 10 day's time, taking over control of parts of the U.S.
Bottom line. I think this is a done deal.

Fitz

[TankHunter]

Instead of giving the contract to some country overseas, ANY COUNTRY, because they're cheaper they should get unemployed AMERICANS to do it. I would bet anything that there are qualified people right here to do the job. I'm sick of hearing about unemployment and no jobs from the government when they're selling them off to other countries.

Americans will be used in day to day operations, just as they were when the Brits were running the show.

[TankHunter]

JSLTIGER and bradclark1, I understand what you say, and I am also disheartened by this trend. I've tried to tell myself that the buck stops where national security is concerned. I only wish the administration would tell us why this is proper. So far, they have not. And this port security situation looks very questionable.

Because the UAE is an ally of the US, and saying "hey, you are Arab, we dont want you doing business here" (which is what keeping them from getting the ports says) will not play out well. It would be more of a problem war on terror wise than letting them in. For that would send a message that we don’t want to have anything to do with fair business practices with the Middle East. Also they have had no problems with complying with UN port regulations, assumptions can be made that they will have no problems with American port regulations.

[bradclark1]

Bush can't veto if both sides of the house are against it. 2/3 majority isn't it? (unsure)

[The Avon Lady]

JSLTIGER and bradclark1, I understand what you say, and I am also disheartened by this trend. I've tried to tell myself that the buck stops where national security is concerned. I only wish the administration would tell us why this is proper. So far, they have not. And this port security situation looks very questionable.

Because the UAE is an ally of the US, and saying "hey, you are Arab, we dont want you doing business here" (which is what keeping them from getting the ports says) will not play out well. It would be more of a problem war on terror wise than letting them in. For that would send a message that we don’t want to have anything to do with fair business practices with the Middle East. Also they have had no problems with complying with UN port regulations, assumptions can be made that they will have no problems with American port regulations.
The response to this is rather obvious or at least it should be:
Has Bush gone mad? (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010342.php)

Port Jihad (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010332.php) Update. Drudge (http://www.drudgereport.com/) has a siren up with this headline, as yet unconnected to any story: "BUSH ISSUES VETO THREAT; VOWS TO KEEP PORT DEAL."

Has Bush gone mad? The UAE may be the most reliable ally the United States has ever had (and of course it isn't remotely that) and there would still be no way for it to ensure that Dubai Ports World hires no one with jihadist sentiments. The situation in the Islamic world, compounded by the Administration's inability or unwillingness to come to grips with the reality of the jihad ideology, indeed make it quite likely that Dubai Ports World will be sending at least a few mujahedin to work in these American ports, and that they will be able to work there unhindered. After all, no one in Washington is yet even asking the right questions of self-proclaimed moderates about where they really stand on jihad and Sharia issues.

Why would Bush want to be so obstinate on this? Doesn't he realize that it does immense damage to his position as being, for all his faults, at least tougher on Islamic terrorism than his opponents? If this deal goes through, will the United States have the luxury of undoing it before it undoes us?

UPDATE: Drudge has just added this:
Bush called reports at about 2.30 aboard Air Force One to issue a very strong defense of port deal... MORE... He said he would veto any legislation to hold up deal and warned the United States was sending 'mixed signals' by going after a company from the Middle East when nothing was said when a British company was in charge... Lawmakers, he said, must 'step up and explain why a middle eastern company is held to a different standard.' Bush was very forceful when he delivered the statement... 'I don't view it as a political fight,' Bush said.... MORE... MORE...
I'll be happy to step up and explain why a middle eastern company is held to a different standard. It has to do with the prevalence of jihadists and jihad sympathizers in the population, the lack of any mechanism, on the government level or any other, to vet them properly, and the consequent likelihood that they will end up working in the American ports in question.

Is that so unreasonable?

SECOND UPDATE: Drudge has just added a link to this brief Reuters (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-02-21T205034Z_01_WBT004834_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-PORTS-BUSH.xml&rpc=22) story.
Or, as Michelle Malkin states (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004612.htm) (read the whole thing):

"Dubai media outlets are calling critics and skeptics of the port sellout "Islamophobes." If demanding that our government put American security interests above foreign business interests makes me an "Islamophobe," and if wanting to know the full details of the who, what, when, where, and why of this UAE government deal, secretly approved by the Treasury Dept.-led Committee on Foreign Investments in the US, makes me an "Islamophobe," I plead guilty."

[Skybird]

:dead:

[The Avon Lady]

:dead:
Speechless?

Hard to believe! :hmm:

[Fitz505]

Unfortuanately, the American public has an attention span of a bug, unless it concerns celebrities. As soon as Paris Hilton or Jessica Simpson hit's the news again, this will be all forgotten. As for Congress, it's an election year comming. What better way to generate some free publicity, by showing you how concerned they are about your security. Let the UAE funnel some 'contributions' into the DNC and GOP and see how fast they do a 180.

Fitz

[STEED]

What better way to generate some free publicity, by showing you how concerned they are about your security.


We call that spin in the UK.

[TteFAboB]

It's a trap. Let them think the doors are open to catch the jihadists when they make a move.

[SUBMAN1]

I have a problem with this one as well. I think Bush is making a mistake.

-S

[Fitz505]

The whole thing smells from start to finish. CFIUS is headed by Treasury Secretary Snow. In 2004 when Snow was an executive officer with CSX, they sold their port operations to DP World. Also David Sanborn who is the Presidents nominee to head the U.S. Maritime Administration was also DP World's Chief of operations for Latin American & Europe. If the press keeps digging, i wouldn't be surprised if there isn't a money trail leading somewhere.
Right now, the Bush administration is probably saying, "Find out what Paris Hilton is up to and tell the press".

Fitz

[TankHunter]

JSLTIGER and bradclark1, I understand what you say, and I am also disheartened by this trend. I've tried to tell myself that the buck stops where national security is concerned. I only wish the administration would tell us why this is proper. So far, they have not. And this port security situation looks very questionable.

Because the UAE is an ally of the US, and saying "hey, you are Arab, we dont want you doing business here" (which is what keeping them from getting the ports says) will not play out well. It would be more of a problem war on terror wise than letting them in. For that would send a message that we don’t want to have anything to do with fair business practices with the Middle East. Also they have had no problems with complying with UN port regulations, assumptions can be made that they will have no problems with American port regulations.
The response to this is rather obvious or at least it should be:
Has Bush gone mad? (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010342.php)

Port Jihad (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010332.php) Update. Drudge (http://www.drudgereport.com/) has a siren up with this headline, as yet unconnected to any story: "BUSH ISSUES VETO THREAT; VOWS TO KEEP PORT DEAL."

Has Bush gone mad? The UAE may be the most reliable ally the United States has ever had (and of course it isn't remotely that) and there would still be no way for it to ensure that Dubai Ports World hires no one with jihadist sentiments. The situation in the Islamic world, compounded by the Administration's inability or unwillingness to come to grips with the reality of the jihad ideology, indeed make it quite likely that Dubai Ports World will be sending at least a few mujahedin to work in these American ports, and that they will be able to work there unhindered. After all, no one in Washington is yet even asking the right questions of self-proclaimed moderates about where they really stand on jihad and Sharia issues.

Why would Bush want to be so obstinate on this? Doesn't he realize that it does immense damage to his position as being, for all his faults, at least tougher on Islamic terrorism than his opponents? If this deal goes through, will the United States have the luxury of undoing it before it undoes us?

UPDATE: Drudge has just added this:
Bush called reports at about 2.30 aboard Air Force One to issue a very strong defense of port deal... MORE... He said he would veto any legislation to hold up deal and warned the United States was sending 'mixed signals' by going after a company from the Middle East when nothing was said when a British company was in charge... Lawmakers, he said, must 'step up and explain why a middle eastern company is held to a different standard.' Bush was very forceful when he delivered the statement... 'I don't view it as a political fight,' Bush said.... MORE... MORE...
I'll be happy to step up and explain why a middle eastern company is held to a different standard. It has to do with the prevalence of jihadists and jihad sympathizers in the population, the lack of any mechanism, on the government level or any other, to vet them properly, and the consequent likelihood that they will end up working in the American ports in question.

Is that so unreasonable?

SECOND UPDATE: Drudge has just added a link to this brief Reuters (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-02-21T205034Z_01_WBT004834_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-PORTS-BUSH.xml&rpc=22) story.
Or, as Michelle Malkin states (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004612.htm) (read the whole thing):

"Dubai media outlets are calling critics and skeptics of the port sellout "Islamophobes." If demanding that our government put American security interests above foreign business interests makes me an "Islamophobe," and if wanting to know the full details of the who, what, when, where, and why of this UAE government deal, secretly approved by the Treasury Dept.-led Committee on Foreign Investments in the US, makes me an "Islamophobe," I plead guilty."

Considering that it seems that the UAE's main strategic objective is making money, rather than exporting Islam, I feel that the threat is minimal at best. If it was Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc, who was looking to acquire this British company, then I would have a strong disagreement with it. Also, look at this logic. Bush is even threatening to veto the threatened stopping of this deal. If there was a great or moderate risk of a terrorist attack happening due to this deal, why would Bush risk his political future by keeping this deal afloat? I see this as a state run business looking to acquire another business with assets in the US. A business run by a state that we have had good relations with since the early 70s, which is much more than what one could say about the other state looking to acquire these ports, China. This is all a political stunt, which will harm us strategically. Angering a friend of ours in the Middle East, and at the same time saying that we do not want to engage with the Middle East economically are not good messages to send. And this is coming from a man who would be quite toasty if Al Quada sets off a nuke in New York harbor.

[The Avon Lady]

Considering that it seems that the UAE's main strategic objective is making money
Nothing I quoted above disagrees with this.
rather than exporting Islam, I feel that the threat is minimal at best.
Based on what? Feeling? Here are some feelings:

"First, the deal will outsource port operations not just to any "foreign-based company"--but to a state-owned entity based in a known transit point for al Qaeda operatives and a key transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya. Second, of course, there's no such thing as a perfect defense. Should we never subject any Mideast companies or individuals to heightened scrutiny because it would offer "no security guarantees?"" - Michelle malkin (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004620.htm)

But let's cut to the chase. Jihad Watch's Hugh Fitzgerald (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010346.php):

"Meanwhile, CAIR is attempting to bludgeon Congress by claiming that opposition is "anti-Arab bigotry." Let them try to bludgeon. But if Bush shows he cannot figure out that many people in this country are far ahead of him in comprehending the nature and menace of Islam, and at this point it is doubtful that he can, he should simply get out of the way, shut up, and not dare to use that veto. We are all getting fed up with his obstinacy and inability to figure things out, and to respond coherently, articulately, cleverly. I don't care that he came out of Andover and Yale knowing nothing. That's his problem. But he has been President for five years. His inability to come to grips with Islam, to stop being sentimental about a "world religion," can no longer be hidden or explained away. The large-scale presence of Muslims in the Lands of the Infidels, behind what they themselves have been so clearly taught to regard as behind enemy lines (the lines of Dar al-Harb, as opposed to Dar al-Islam) has everywhere created a situation that for Infidels is much more unpleasant, much more expensive, and much more physically dangerous, than it would be without that large-scale presence. Bush cannot bring himself to even think a thought like that, or to begin to study Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira as those whose duty it is to protect us should be doing. He should have been devoting his time not to reassuring the UAE, or calling its ownership as innocuous as would be such ownership by the British, but instead he ought to be moving heaven and earth to rally NATO around Denmark (remember "an attack on one member of NATO will be considered an attack on all"?), and to standing up for, reminding the Western world of, the principles of individual liberty enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and every one of which is flatly contradicted by the Shari'a. He should be having the Pentagon and the State Department (not its Arabists, but its Europeanists) and the C.I.A. figuring out how to campaign, as they once did in Western Europe (remember the Congress for Cultural Freedom and Encounter magazine -- the best use of C.I.A. money conceivable) undertaking a vast effort of pedagogy to counter, and end, the influence of the Islamintern International at the U.N., at the E.U., in the European press and television, and in halting, and even reversing, the jihadist presence in the Lands of the Infidels.

He doesn't have to say it all quite the way it has been said above. But he has to grasp its undeniable truth."

:dead: OUCH! :dead:
If it was Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc, who was looking to acquire this British company, then I would have a strong disagreement with it.
But I thought Saudi Arabia was America's "staunch ally"?! :shifty:
Also, look at this logic. Bush is even threatening to veto the threatened stopping of this deal. If there was a great or moderate risk of a terrorist attack happening due to this deal, why would Bush risk his political future by keeping this deal afloat?
What political future?
I see this as a state run business looking to acquire another business with assets in the US. A business run by a state that we have had good relations with since the early 70s, which is much more than what one could say about the other state looking to acquire these ports, China.
Pointing out that China is less reliable does not by definition make the UAE reliable enough.
This is all a political stunt,
It is anything but a stunt.
which will harm us strategically.
Nonsense. A ton of potentially strategic national harm is being avoided.
Angering a friend of ours in the Middle East, and at the same time saying that we do not want to engage with the Middle East economically
The US is heavily engaged with the ME and has been for decades. This deal is one in a million.
are not good messages to send.
Tough.
And this is coming from a man who would be quite toasty if Al Quada sets off a nuke in New York harbor.
Would you repeat that a little louder? I don't think you heard yourself. :hmm:

[SUBMAN1]

Considering that it seems that the UAE's main strategic objective is making money
Nothing I quoted above disagrees with this.
rather than exporting Islam, I feel that the threat is minimal at best.
Based on what? Feeling? Here are some feelings:

"First, the deal will outsource port operations not just to any "foreign-based company"--but to a state-owned entity based in a known transit point for al Qaeda operatives and a key transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya. Second, of course, there's no such thing as a perfect defense. Should we never subject any Mideast companies or individuals to heightened scrutiny because it would offer "no security guarantees?"" - Michelle malkin (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004620.htm)

But let's cut to the chase. Jihad Watch's Hugh Fitzgerald (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010346.php):

"Meanwhile, CAIR is attempting to bludgeon Congress by claiming that opposition is "anti-Arab bigotry." Let them try to bludgeon. But if Bush shows he cannot figure out that many people in this country are far ahead of him in comprehending the nature and menace of Islam, and at this point it is doubtful that he can, he should simply get out of the way, shut up, and not dare to use that veto. We are all getting fed up with his obstinacy and inability to figure things out, and to respond coherently, articulately, cleverly. I don't care that he came out of Andover and Yale knowing nothing. That's his problem. But he has been President for five years. His inability to come to grips with Islam, to stop being sentimental about a "world religion," can no longer be hidden or explained away. The large-scale presence of Muslims in the Lands of the Infidels, behind what they themselves have been so clearly taught to regard as behind enemy lines (the lines of Dar al-Harb, as opposed to Dar al-Islam) has everywhere created a situation that for Infidels is much more unpleasant, much more expensive, and much more physically dangerous, than it would be without that large-scale presence. Bush cannot bring himself to even think a thought like that, or to begin to study Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira as those whose duty it is to protect us should be doing. He should have been devoting his time not to reassuring the UAE, or calling its ownership as innocuous as would be such ownership by the British, but instead he ought to be moving heaven and earth to rally NATO around Denmark (remember "an attack on one member of NATO will be considered an attack on all"?), and to standing up for, reminding the Western world of, the principles of individual liberty enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and every one of which is flatly contradicted by the Shari'a. He should be having the Pentagon and the State Department (not its Arabists, but its Europeanists) and the C.I.A. figuring out how to campaign, as they once did in Western Europe (remember the Congress for Cultural Freedom and Encounter magazine -- the best use of C.I.A. money conceivable) undertaking a vast effort of pedagogy to counter, and end, the influence of the Islamintern International at the U.N., at the E.U., in the European press and television, and in halting, and even reversing, the jihadist presence in the Lands of the Infidels.

He doesn't have to say it all quite the way it has been said above. But he has to grasp its undeniable truth."

:dead: OUCH! :dead:
If it was Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc, who was looking to acquire this British company, then I would have a strong disagreement with it.
But I thought Saudi Arabia was America's "staunch ally"?! :shifty:
Also, look at this logic. Bush is even threatening to veto the threatened stopping of this deal. If there was a great or moderate risk of a terrorist attack happening due to this deal, why would Bush risk his political future by keeping this deal afloat?
What political future?
I see this as a state run business looking to acquire another business with assets in the US. A business run by a state that we have had good relations with since the early 70s, which is much more than what one could say about the other state looking to acquire these ports, China.
Pointing out that China is less reliable does not by definition make the UAE reliable enough.
This is all a political stunt,
It is anything but a stunt.
which will harm us strategically.
Nonsense. A ton of potentially strategic national harm is being avoided.
Angering a friend of ours in the Middle East, and at the same time saying that we do not want to engage with the Middle East economically
The US is heavily engaged with the ME and has been for decades. This deal is one in a million.
are not good messages to send.
Tough.
And this is coming from a man who would be quite toasty if Al Quada sets off a nuke in New York harbor.
Would you repeat that a little louder? I don't think you heard yourself. :hmm:

Well said Avon Lady! The simple fact of the matter is, the truth is going to hurt a bit, but it is the truth (and yes - it will offend Muslims everywhere, but I think it is in our best interest to start offending Muslims everywhere so that they can learn to deal with it, much like a child learns to deal with pain). We are all infidels and so we must defend our infidel nature I would think! :)

-S

[mog]

I wouldn't quite call it Islamophobia or bigotry, just ignorance.

There are, however, a number of safeguards on all sides. Though it will operate the ports, Dubai will not own them, and Americans will remain fully responsible for security, in the form of federal coast-guard, customs and immigration officials. The UAE is a member of America’s Container Security Initiative, which allows American customs officials to inspect cargo in foreign ports before it ever leaves for America. Stephen Flynn is probably the best-known and loudest critic of American port security, calling it a “house of cards”. But regarding the Dubai deal, he has said that running port operations ranks low on the scale of security concerns, and told Time magazine that DP World is “not exactly a shadow organisation for al-Qaeda”. He hopes only that the controversy generated by the deal will lead to a more thorough look at port and shipping security generally.

[The Avon Lady]

I wouldn't quite call it Islamophobia or bigotry, just ignorance.
There are, however, a number of safeguards on all sides. Though it will operate the ports, Dubai will not own them, and Americans will remain fully responsible for security, in the form of federal coast-guard, customs and immigration officials. The UAE is a member of America’s Container Security Initiative, which allows American customs officials to inspect cargo in foreign ports before it ever leaves for America. Stephen Flynn is probably the best-known and loudest critic of American port security, calling it a “house of cards”. But regarding the Dubai deal, he has said that running port operations ranks low on the scale of security concerns, and told Time magazine that DP World is “not exactly a shadow organisation for al-Qaeda”. He hopes only that the controversy generated by the deal will lead to a more thorough look at port and shipping security generally.
Ignorance indeed. Once again, from Michelle Malkin (if only you had bothered to read):
Missing. The. Point. The issue is not whether day-to-day, on-the-ground conditions at the ports would change. They presumably wouldn't. The issues are whether we should grant the demonstrably unreliable UAE access to sensitive information and management plans about our key U.S ports, which are plenty insecure enough without adding new risks, and whether the decision process was thorough and free from conflicts of interest.

The <Wall Street> Journal and the Bush administration make no persuasive case that it was.

(The Washington Times adds that "company officials would be briefed on security procedures and countermeasures that, if compromised, could allow foreign terrorists to get through various screening procedures." Moreover, while the Coast Guard is responsible for port security, tracking ships, crews and cargo and search vessels based on intelligence, "there is no cohesive hiring or screening process for port workers.")
And here's a nice little bedtime story (http://www.nationalreview.com/gaffney/gaffney200602220830.asp) about the UAE's DPW:
If the following response to a posting on the WarFooting.com blog last Thursday by a self-described, but anonymous, former employee of the UAE company is any guide, that won't be pretty:
The US and the West in general are making a serious mistake if they hand over control of 21 ports to an Arab company, owned by an Arab government.

As a former employee of the DP World I can offer a unique insight into the goings on of this company, and I'm afraid if you scrape beneath the surface, it's not all its cracked up to be.

Did you know that several times a year, staff receive a company memo informing them that, for that particular month, one day's salary will be deducted and given to a Palestine "charity"!!! Staff are allowed to refuse by informing Human Resources Department, but no one ever did — knowing that this would lead to being over-looked for promotions and/or not having your contract renewed. I recall one poor Indian dock-side labourer on [a] $500-a-month [salary] complaining that he couldn't afford to make the payment as he had his wife and three children back in India to feed. He promptly was fired!

They have a reputation and a track record of not honouring staff contracts for expatriates, and I know of several employees who didn't receive their end contract bonuses or whose personal effects were not repatriated back to their home country. I mean, what can you do when the company is owned by the government of UAE and Shari'a law applies?
The author goes on to remind us of some of the United Arab Emirates' unsavory behavior: "the UAE bans Israelis from visiting or working in their country, and maps of the world have Israel blackened out. Even a non-Israeli who has visited Israel and has an Israel visa in their passport, is denied entry into the UAE." He also observes DP World made much on their website about "one of its senior executives, Dave Sanborn, being nominated by US President George W. Bush to serve as Maritime Administrator, a key transportation appointment reporting directly to Norman Mineta, the Secretary of Transportation and Cabinet Member."
Charmed. :nope:

[Iceman]

Innocent until proven guilty...man you guys are nuts.The terrorists have truly succeded if you think allowing this company to take over the day to day activities of some ports in America is making America less secure.Get flipping real....If terrorists want to get something in here then I'm sure they could use one of the probably hundreds of tunnels used for transporting drugs into this country thru Arizona, New Mexico, or Texas....or if they want to take a more secinic route they could lesiure thru Canada's some 1000's of square miles of borders...or use any of the other many many ports of which America proudly boasts of only 5-7% of all cargo ever actually being cracked open and being checked.

To unfairly single out this country simply because of being a "Muslim" country is as hillbilly as an Alabama KKK club.Makes me ashamed to be an American when susch non-sense like this is going on.

Like looking under the bed for the boogy-man....Evil is in your hearts...not under the bed....NO FEAR!

And please don't come back with the obvious bla bla bla about ignoring the threat from Muslims extremists...yes there are bad people in the world who do bad bad things....most of them are your neighbors or brothers or mom and dad.

[The Avon Lady]

Innocent until proven guilty...man you guys are nuts.The terrorists have truly succeded if you think allowing this company to take over the day to day activities of some ports in America is making America less secure.Get flipping real....If terrorists want to get something in here then I'm sure they could use one of the probably hundreds of tunnels used for transporting drugs into this country thru Arizona, New Mexico, or Texas....or if they want to take a more secinic route they could lesiure thru Canada's some 1000's of square miles of borders...or use any of the other many many ports of which America proudly boasts of only 5-7% of all cargo ever actually being cracked open and being checked.

To unfairly single out this country simply because of being a "Muslim" country is as hillbilly as an Alabama KKK club.Makes me ashamed to be an American when susch non-sense like this is going on.

Like looking under the bed for the boogy-man....Evil is in your hearts...not under the bed....NO FEAR!

And please don't come back with the obvious bla bla bla about ignoring the threat from Muslims extremists...yes there are bad people in the world who do bad bad things....most of them are your neighbors or brothers or mom and dad.
We'll give you another chance to think it over. From the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114066714703481063.html?mod=home_whats_news_us):
Dubai is believed to have been one of the most important conduits for Iran's nuclear technology acquisition program, according to U.S. court cases and interviews with experts in the field. The Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, a nongovernment advocacy group, last year published a list of 38 weapons-related smuggling cases since 1982 in which the goods moved through Dubai and the other islands that constitute the United Arab Emirates. Most of the illicit goods crossing Dubai go through its ports.
More generally, according to sanctions experts and numerous U.S. court and regulatory cases, Iran uses Dubai to evade U.S. economic sanctions on Iran and other Middle Eastern countries. The UAE doesn't recognize those sanctions.

Iranian front companies in Dubai routinely obtain prohibited U.S. goods, federal court records show. In one undercover investigation by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency that resulted in a November 2005 guilty plea in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the representative of an Iranian front company was caught on tape assuring an undercover agent posing as a businessman not to worry about sanctions regulations.

"You are going to export to Dubai, which does not have any regulations. It's a free, uh, country for importing, exporting," said Khalid Mahmood, according to his guilty plea. Asked if the equipment would then be shipped to Iran, Mr. Mahmood replied, "Once it comes here, we'll ship it anywhere in the world, no problem."

Similarly, in 2003, UAE officials refused a U.S. request to intercept a shipment of nuclear technology bound for South Africa by a smuggler named Asher Karni, according to University of Georgia sanctions expert Scott Jones, who works with U.S. agencies on proliferation issues. Mr. Karni was convicted of violating sanctions against weapons of mass destruction last year in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The UAE also was believed to be a nexus for Pakistan's nuclear program and hosted at least two front companies that forwarded material to Islamabad.
Blah blah blah. :shifty:

[SmokinTep]

Looks like it is on hold for now.

[bradclark1]

The issue is not whether day-to-day, on-the-ground conditions at the ports would change. They presumably wouldn't. The issues are whether we should grant the demonstrably unreliable UAE access to sensitive information and management plans about our key U.S ports, which are plenty insecure enough without adding new risks
Nuff said.

[tycho102]

Qatar and the UAE are competing against each other for the "neutrality" niche. The Switzerland of Arabia. They'll trade with anyone, without any moral convictions or jurisprudence. And it stands to be a lucritive niche if America ever gains independence from arab oil.

I don't blame them. It's a sound business strategy. America will continue using ports for import/export, long after we stop tankers from arabia/persia.

The final issue on this is that the UAE government will have hire/fire power over any dock workers. If they bribe the right people, they can even evade the Department of Immigration's review of their worker immigration status. Specifically, the UAE can be hiring Al-Qaeda operatives to be working right there when The Shipment rolls in. A most convenient circumstance.

I was ignorant of foreign companies "leasing" our ports. I would imagine there's a whole damn other bunch of port management companies that need to be re-evaluated, as well as this one. This is just one company that happened to catch headlines, giving all us Americans a quick look at the entire system. At the entire port-lease system, not just this one state-run company.

I am appalled.

[Etienne]

The final issue on this is that the UAE government will have hire/fire power over any dock workers. If they bribe the right people, they can even evade the Department of Immigration's review of their worker immigration status. Specifically, the UAE can be hiring Al-Qaeda operatives to be working right there when The Shipment rolls in. A most convenient circumstance.

Oh boy. You've never worked with American stevedores, have you?

They have an union.

And I mean an U-N-I-O-N. The kind everybody's affraid of. Probably even Ben Laden.

[Iceman]

Hey Avon Lady....NO FEAR.

I choose NOT to live in fear of things that are beyond my control....or Fear period for that matter.

Fear is not of God.

did Michelle Milkin say that?...doh!

[caspofungin]

saudia (saudi arabian airlines) has 2 large air cargo terminals in dc and san francisco (i think) -- been there for years, run under the same sort of scheme as the dubai company intends to run the ports. what's the difference?

[The Avon Lady]

saudia (saudi arabian airlines) has 2 large air cargo terminals in dc and san francisco (i think) -- been there for years, run under the same sort of scheme as the dubai company intends to run the ports. what's the difference?
Maybe you're right.

Maybe it will turn out to be just as stupid and dangerous a decision in hindsite.

Not the answer you were expecting. :smug:

[TteFAboB]

The difference this time is that there are more politicians abusing the fear of national insecurity to score some votes.

[caspofungin]

@al

not really expecting any answer per se, just pointing out items of relevance.

[The Avon Lady]

Thou shall not pass (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004728.htm). :nope:

[cowman1009]

So let us all hope that the President doesn't use the Veto to get this one passed. I agree strongly with where the house wants to use the money (Iraq, Afghanistan and Katrina Rebuilding); these issues are a little bit more important than turning over port control to the UAE. :yep:

[sonar732]

So let us all hope that the President doesn't use the Veto to get this one passed. I agree strongly with where the house wants to use the money (Iraq, Afghanistan and Katrina Rebuilding); these issues are a little bit more important than turning over port control to the UAE. :yep:

Even if he attempts to use the Veto option, he'll loose. How do you think that will look to the US public? Not only that, but the republican congress is gearing up for the mid-term elections and want to save their seats/a$$es and will override the veto easily judging by the votes in the committee.

[August]

I forget, did they ever give the President a Line Item Veto?

[sonar732]

I forget, did they ever give the President a Line Item Veto?

If he does have the line-item veto and uses it, his approval rating will drop below 30%...it's already at 35-40% depending on the polls.