Is that a meaningful distinction with regards to security?

No, he said a reason OTHER than the fact they are from the UAE.

Dammit, I am feeling ill inside as I write this. ;)

Yeah, what he said!!!

Something feels so wrong when I'm on the side of JPhillips, MrBigglesworth and Flasch186 in a political thread. I think I need to go lie down for a bit.

I didn't even know the POL threads were "in the crosshairs". My position on that is the same as always. If you get rid of them then you get rid of some of the traffic. You get rid of the traffic, and this place dies.

I really couldn't say.

So we can't trust the Arabs then?

I had this discussion with one of my friends today, he would fairly well agree that he is a liberal, he is at very least at serious odds with the Republican party. In his own words. "If we're going to condemn this on its face value, then we might as well just start calling arabs Sand Niggers, and move on."

Yup. Its united the free-traders against the protectionists and the "chicken-little" crowd. Bush has gained major points with me for his principled stance on this .

Glen: If you aren't going to pay attention to what is posted, why ask?

As I said earlier I think this deal can get done, but it quite obviously requires extra oversight and extra regulations. This is a country whose leaders palled around with Bin Laden. To say that any scrutiny of this deal is racism is ridiculous. The UAE has earned its reputation.

What bothers me so much is that instead of approving the deal with extra oversight it seems that we approved it with minimal oversight. I still haven't heard who actually approved the deal, but Bush, Rumsfeld and Chertoff have all said they didn't know about it. The mandatory 45 day review was initially skipped. The deal includes provisions that allow the UAE to shield documents from U.S. courts.

A lot of the hysteria about this deal is unwarranted, but Bush is just reaping what he has sown.

the storing docs overseas scares me.

I agree. My political postings on this board tend to skew left, but I find the criticism from the left embarrasingly disingenous--I really do think that the Democrats are making a calculated play on American xenophobia to bash the administration on an issue that frankly just isn't a big deal. They know better, but politics is politics I suppose.

I think a lot of the people who automatically bash the UAE are completely ignorant of what Dubai has become: it's not some collection of tents and camels in the sand, but an example of gleaming modernity. In the 70s, the leadership of Dubai wisely chose to diverify its economy to emphasize trade, financial services, and tourism knowing that the oil would eventually run out, and the city is well on it's way to becoming the Singapore of the Middle East.

Once a state becomes an economic powerhouse dependent on global trade, they tend to do all in their power to not antagonize its trading partners with unsavory behavior. I don't think the Dubai will be any different.

As for what I think of the US government running port operations:

http://www.slate.com/id/2136783/?nav=navoa

Sounds like an economic disaster waiting to happen. Working from scratch, it could take years for the federal government to acquire the personnel and knowledge base to operate the ports effectively. Since American companies have left the port operation business for greener pastures years ago, the feds , for quite some time, will have to rely on foreign know-how anyway...

From the Jerusalem Post


The parent company of a Dubai-based firm at the center of a political storm in the US over the purchase of American ports participates in the Arab boycott against Israel, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

The firm, Dubai Ports World, is seeking control over six major US ports, including those in New York, Miami, Philadelphia and Baltimore. It is entirely owned by the Government of Dubai via a holding company called the Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporation (PCZC), which consists of the Dubai Port Authority, the Dubai Customs Department and the Jebel Ali Free Zone Area.

"Yes, of course the boycott is still in place and is still enforced," Muhammad Rashid a-Din, a staff member of the Dubai Customs Department's Office for the Boycott of Israel, told the Post in a telephone interview.

"If a product contained even some components that were made in Israel, and you wanted to import it to Dubai, it would be a problem," he said.

A-Din noted that while the head office for the anti-Israel boycott sits in Damascus, he and his fellow staff members are paid employees of the Dubai Customs Department, which is a division of the PCZC, the same Dubai government-owned entity that runs Dubai Ports World.

Moreover, the Post found that the website for Dubai's Jebel Ali Free Zone Area, which is also part of the PCZC, advises importers that they will need to comply with the terms of the boycott.

In a section entitled "Frequently Asked Questions", the site lists six documents that are required in order to clear an item through the Dubai Customs Department. One of them, called a "Certificate of Origin," "is used by customs to confirm the country of origin and needs to be seen by the office which ensures any trade boycotts are enforced," according to the website.

A-Din of the Israel boycott office confirmed that his office examines certificates of origin as a means of verifying whether a product originated in the Jewish state.

On at least three separate occasions last year, the Post has learned, companies were fined by the US government's Office of Anti-boycott Compliance, an arm of the Commerce Department, on charges connected to boycott-related requests they had received from the Government of Dubai.

US law bars firms from complying with such requests or cooperating with attempts by Arab governments to boycott Israel.

In one instance, according to a Commerce Department press release, a New York-based exporter agreed to pay a fine for having "failed to report in a timely manner its receipts of requests from Dubai" to provide certification that its products had not been made in Israel.

The proposed handover of US ports to DP World has provoked a political storm in Washington, where Republicans and Democrats alike have expressed hostility to the plan, citing national security concerns.

In an attempt to stave off opposition, DP World agreed over the weekend to a highly unusual 45-day second federal investigation of potential security risks.

Your argument is: 'It'll take a while, so why try?' Indeed, why research stem cells? It will only take a long time and results won't be seen for years.

Let's put this into perspective. The main concern of the deal is security, of which ports have earned an F grade. The federal government has determined that it is worth $400 billion and counting to invade and occupy Iraq, a move which if completely successful would have given a nominal security benefit, yet had a tiny probability for success. The yearly defense budget is half a trillion dollars. How much would it cost to operate the ports with some inefficiency yet better security?

i think the above article just kind of wraps it up for us all. Israel = US ally, Israel is not recognized by UAE [slap in the face], UAE boycotts Israeli goods, we cannot hand over ports to UAE....

...Like Lou Dobbs said, will handing them over hurt us tomorrow? probably not, but how about 4 years from now, if there is a blow up in the M.E.? that would be a problem.

I think that is the best argument against this.

My argument isn't "It'll take awhile, so why try?" My argument is that the goals of efficiency and security are inherently in opposition to each other: optimal efficiency requires that you sacrifice security and vice versa. I have my doubts as to whether a single entity can navigate both without succumbing to paralyzing infighting.

Security is important, but I think that it is better served by being addressed by adequately mandating a concrete role for the relevant Homeland Security agencies and funding these mandates adequately. Leave port operations to private operators who know what they're doing on a logistical basis. I would rather see two entities: one specializing in operational logistics (the private company) and one specializing in security (homeland security, presumably), than a single entitity that is good at neither.

Yes, but.... ;)

The knowledge of details of operational logistics is in itself a security risk. I think the idea that this knowledge will be freely available to a company with headquarters in a country with a dubious record on terrorism & nuclear trafficing bears some scrutiny, myself.

Plus, no one's addressed the issues raised by Joseph King, the former head of Customs for DHC that I posted earlier.

thurraw investigation Id say, at least according to administration standards [/sarcasm]


Lawmaker: Port deal never probed for terror ties
Coast Guard official says ports 'far more secure now'

Wednesday, March 1, 2006; Posted: 5:35 p.m. EST (22:35 GMT)

story.chertoff.ap.jpg
Michael Chertoff speaks to Coast Guard Adm. Thomas Gilmour (center) and department CFO Andrew Maner before testifying Wednesday.
Public Administration
Regent University is offering a M.A. in government and a certificate of graduate...
www.regent.edu
Public Administration Degrees Online
Earn a masters degree in public administration online from Keller graduate...
www.kellermasters.com
Public Administration Degrees Online
Enroll in a public administration program from CTU. Get the degree you need for...
www.ctuonlinedegrees.com
More Useful Links
• Online Book Stores
• Notebook Computers
• Sporting Goods

WATCH
Browse/Search
Coast Guard concerns over ports deal (3:08)
Coast Guard report fuels row over port deal (2:09)
RELATED
• FindLaw: Coast Guard memoexternal link
• TIME.com: How Bush will payexternal link
• Interactive: Gateways to America
• Interactive: Port operations
• Interactive: DP World
YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
United Arab Emirates
Ports
or Create Your Own
Manage Alerts | What Is This?

(CNN) -- A review of a United Arab Emirates-owned company's plan to take over operations at key U.S. ports never looked into whether the company had ties to al Qaeda or other terrorists, a key Republican lawmaker told CNN on Wednesday.

Rep. Peter King of New York, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said officials from the Homeland Security and Treasury departments told him weeks ago that their 30-day review of the deal did not look into the question of links between DP World and al Qaeda.

"I can't emphasize this enough," King, who has been a vocal critic of the deal, told CNN. "There is no investigation into terrorism whatsoever on this contract."

King's comments appear to contradict testimony by administration officials before Congress this week that a through review of any terrorism ties had occurred during the initial review of the deal.

After King and other lawmakers raised concerns about the deal, the company agreed to a 45-day review by the investigation. King said the administration should use the time to investigate the firm rather than trying to convince lawmakers that the deal should be approved.

"They should be educating themselves," King said.
Port security defended

Also Wednesday, the U.S. Coast Guard's vice commandant defended the state of U.S. port security after facing tough questioning from lawmakers on Capitol Hill, but acknowledged that more work remains to be done.

"I don't think there's any question that our ports are far more secure now than they were prior to 9/11," Vice Adm. Terry M. Cross told a congressional subcommittee.

His testimony came a day after Department of Homeland Security deputy secretary Michael P. Jackson told a Senate committee he was unaware of a Coast Guard memo that warned of "intelligence gaps" in its review of a proposed merger that would put a company owned by and based in the United Arab Emirates in charge of several U.S. cargo terminals.

The Coast Guard, which is part of Homeland Security, said the document has been taken out of context since its disclosure.

The document's existence was revealed Monday by Sen. Susan Collins, chairwoman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. (Read the Coast Guard memoexternal link)
Chertoff promises changes

Collins, a Maine Republican, asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff on Wednesday what measures he would take to improve communication within his department after the Coast Guard memo went unnoticed.

Chertoff said his department was taking measures to "flatten the organization" in an effort to streamline communication between department heads.

Chertoff addressed the committee Wednesday in a wide-ranging hearing on his department's proposed budget.

A wave of concern has swept Capitol Hill over news of the deal to allow Dubai-based DP World to assume management of cargo terminals at five U.S. ports on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, and a passenger terminal in New York. (Interactive: Who is minding the ports)

Critics note that two of the suicide hijackers involved in the attacks of September 11, 2001, came from the United Arab Emirates and that money for the plot was funneled through banks in Dubai, the banking hub of the Persian Gulf.

Supporters note that the UAE is an ally and home to major U.S. military bases, and that port security would be handled by the Coast Guard and other law enforcement agencies after the merger, just as it is now.

The $6.8 billion merger is set to close Thursday in Britain, home of current port operator P&O, but DP World agreed not to assume control of P&O's port operations until a 45-day security review takes place.

In his testimony, Cross expressed confidence in domestic port security, noting that ships now must give 96 hours' notice before entering a U.S. port, up from 24 hours before September 11. Cross said the additional time allows port security officers to vet a ship's crew, passenger list, cargo manifest and vessel history before it arrives.

But Democratic Rep. Corrine Brown of Florida faulted the Bush administration for not doing enough. She said $4.4 billion has been spent on aviation security, "but only $36 million in all surface transportation."

She noted that the Coast Guard is one of an amalgam of agencies involved in providing port security.

"In Jacksonville, we hire the sheriff's department," she said.

Cross concurred that other agencies are involved in port security, but said, "I think we are the leaders for port security."

He said that, since July 2004, the Coast Guard has identified more than 700 violations of the Maritime Security Act of 2002, of which 44 were considered major. Moreover, he said, his agency is empowered to do something about violations.

"When we see a major violation, that oftentimes results in a stoppage of cargo operations; sometimes we close facilities until they have met the requirements of the act."

Overseas, Coast Guard inspections of 44 ports found seven that failed and, as a result, ships that have passed through those ports get additional scrutiny once they arrive in a U.S. port, he said.

And, he noted, the captains of U.S. ports are all Coast Guard officers, and can refuse ships entry or order them held in port.

Still, holes remain, he acknowledged, noting that port workers are not subject to background checks and have no special identification cards beyond "a picture ID from a state or federal agency."

Fixing those flaws are among the agency's priorities, he said.

Rep. Bob Filner, a California Democrat, was not impressed.

"You leave me a lot of insecurity about our security," he said.

Brown concurred.

"I know, as a lay person, that the system is flawed. I'm sure that the terrorists know it too. ... The talk is wonderful, but I need to know: Where is the beef?"

The subcommittee is planning to continue its questioning next week.
Overseas inspections preferred

Chertoff told the Senate Homeland Security Committee that his department would prefer that cargo be inspected at overseas ports, before it arrives in the United States.

He said all shipments to the United States are screened, but only 5 to 6 percent of cargo is inspected.

Cargo is inspected, he said, if the screening flags it as suspicious, based on information including the ship's manifest, the shipper and the destination.

Chertoff said he plans to travel to Hong Kong at the end of March to evaluate a port inspection prototype that could speed the inspection process.

Also Wednesday, a federal judge refused a request by the state of New Jersey to investigate the ports deal, according to The Associated Press. The judge also refused to order the release of the documents relating to the deal, saying they were confidential and that the state failed "to show an immediate need for those documents," the AP said.

Because your answers boiled down to the one reason I said not to use. I said You listed a bunch of reasons why we can't trust a company from the UAE.

Saudi Arabia = Ally

Saudi Arabia participates in the boycott of Israeli products.

It gets complicated doesn't it.

Glen: All of which are quite specific. If contacts with Bin Laden and nuclear smuggling and funding 9/11 terrorists are off limits why bother to pose the question?

Remember Glen, this isn't "a compnay from the UEA" its a company owned and operated by the royal family and nation of the UAE. The same company owners re the owns that cavorted with Bin Laden.

Or to put it differently, I'll pose a question to you.

"Who had closer ties with Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein or the royal family of the UAE and owners of DPW?"

oh, im not a fan of that either...its consistent. start listing stuff SA is involved in and Im a fan of pulling back off that too.

Missed was the point that Saudi companies are running port/terminal operations at other US ports. I have ZERO issue with that, and neither did anyone else before the critics of the administration picked up on the UAE deal, and decided to see just how much traction the story had.

Again. I'm not saying this deal would have been good for the country. I'm at a loss as to why the admin would be so strongly behind..so much so to threaten a veto. I'm glad the 45 day investigation will take place. I don't think there will be any material problems that will stop this deal from going through. If it doesn't go through it will be strictly because of public opinion, and anti-arab sentiment.

I get it that the company in question is partially owned and controlled by the UAE. I follow.

As for the Bin Laden bit. I'd wager that it would be pretty difficult to find a ME country whose royal family hasn't cavorted to one degree or another with the likes of Bin Laden. A member of the Saudi royal family essentially blamed the US for the attack on the World Trade Center. I still see no reason to exclude them from the free markets of the US.

we didnt know, there is no way that the american public can know everything. We simply find out when its exposed, or it comes out and then have to make a opinion on it, even if its essentially after the fact. I mean the number of "things" that exist in our country is probably in the billions.....cant know them all.

This one stinks, ESPECIALLY considering the tenuous nature in the ME AND the UAE's stance on our allies AND their porous running of their own ports....


This is leaving out the fact that the admin. didnt follow the law when considering this deal in the first place. The law says ANY security concerns from anyone involved and it gets the 45 day review. Coast guard concerns = 45 day review but for some reason this was on the fast track.

Somewhere I read a post asking why we aren't demanding anything of the UAE for approval of the port deal and I think its a good question. I could support this if it was tied to our stated intention of spreading democracy in the ME. Maybe we ask for an end to the Isreal boycott or some token elections or something. If we really want to spread democracy in the ME we need to use opportunities like this to put up or shut up.

So, now that the UAE ports deal is dead, I wonder how much "security" is really going to be addressed by this outcome. There is no American company specializing in port operations that can handle operations of this scale. I have heard that an American financial services/investment banking firm is the most likely buyer at this point. Thus, even if there is an American buyer, it does seem that they will not have the relevant expertise and will have to outsource port operations management anyway.

And DP World, as it should be, is expected to hold out and will sell only for fair value--so it looks like a transition could take some time.

a private foreigh entity im ok with...a forign govermental entity im not.

a report came out today, a govt report, talking about how awful our port secuirty is...so perhaps this will give the congress some legs to fix it.

Of course nothing of port security was going to come from it. Now that an Arab company (albeit with a CEO being a white guy from New Jersey), and if you think this hubbub wouldn't have happened if this was a private Arab company you are smoking something, was defeated in ownership of some ports, this will all take a back seat and nothing will be done on it. I'm sure of it. The political issue is over. A bunch of Congressmen showed how "pro security" they were and its over. Arabs don't have control of the ports... but the Chinese do. And Saudi Arabia... err.. well, they have LOTS of Oil!

Something will only happen to port security if there's a commitment made to beef up the inspections in the ports. Given that there's barely enough manpower to inspect about 5% of shipping as it is, and given that the government has critical spending tied up elsewhere, I wouldn't get your hopes up.

The Chinese Army controls some of our port operations. And the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The only other company bidding on P&O is run by the government of Singapore.

Xenophobia at its finest, and most detrimental.

im consistent...,many of our allies today were enemies in our past and in the future some of our allies today will be enemies of our future....no foreign goverment should run things that in the future could be used against us. xenophobia NO protection and security YES....I thought the right were the thinkers of security and the left wasnt...we now see the truth!! LOL

What this whole espisode shows me, once again, is how absurdly dumbed-down all matters of foreign affairs need to be before the American public and its so-called leaders get interested. If the facts of the matter have to be sacrificed in order to bundle it up into a convenient little sound byte, so be it. We like our foreign affairs in very small bites in this country.

"Sell our ports to the Arabs = bad." Case closed.

For all the people (and elected representatives) who have suddenly caught religion on port security in the last couple of weeks... where the hell have you been the last five years (and longer)?

The republicans havnt been listening. Perhaps now they will since for the past 5 years they have been in power.

You missed the "longer" part. Both Democrats and Republicans have been outsourcing the port protection. It's only a big deal now because it's an Arab company that was trying to do it.

Also, it wasn't the Republicans listening, but the Administration itself. Big difference there. If you have been paying attention, both parties are up in arms over the whole ordeal.

xen·o·pho·bi·a (zn-fb-, zn-)
n.

An irrational fear and contempt of strangers or foreign peoples.

And I thought the "left" was against racial profiling and in favor of constructively working with our allies. But I guess this helps prove that principles are less useful for understanding politics than picking sides and being hypocritical when it suits the issue at hand is.

you keep pointing to it as if it is a racial thing. For ME it is not, that should put your rhetoric to bed. Any foreign government running one of our key iinfrastructure items is a bad idea. PERIOD. It is absolutely rational to draw the conclusion that we havnt had our last conflict in our lifetime and to have foreign entities involved in our infrastructure, especially those that EVEN our Coast Guard voiced concerns about is a bad idea. Your idea of racism, in this case, with me, is a red herring...please stop as it is offensive.

as for your other quote, i simply think you dont believe whatI say is what I mean, so your debate tactics are like a merry go round. If you wont listen to what I say, even about my own thoguhts, than why are you wasting your time spinning your tires.

I'd say that most of america, a overwhelming majority, right and left, think that this thought about protecting our entrance points to our country IS rational....to say the least.

This admin has been the protection admin....at every turn they pound security in our faces, they make sure we're all aware of what the enemy wants to do....considering that viewpoint, certainly one should question the rhetoric about our security coming from the top, when their actions throw caution to the wind, they dont follow the rules and regulations in their haste to sell our stuff overseas, and then cry when the American public shows some signs of waking up. Rational sir, this is.

Thanks, I needed to laugh. :D

You are specifically saing you are against any deal with foreigners in this situation. I'm not calling you a racist by pointing that out, and I don't believe it is going overboard to call that attitude xenophobic.

If you want to talk about logical fallacies in your arguments, the Coast Guard had their concerns addressed, so bringing that up is merely scaremongering. I also don't know if you are being hypocritical on this issue, but there are a a lot of foreign government-owned companies that have been running ports for years now, so I'm kinda curious why the sudden outrage and protectionist sentiment.

And I'd say that most of America doesn't have an understanding of what exactly this deal entails (that it isn't security) how ports are operated, who controls them already (the Chinese Gov't, KSA, other multinationals) the nature of the UAE (about as friendly a ME government as there is right now) the structure of the company (many of those in charge are Americans, Europeans or other non-UAE nationals) or the practicality of implementing the protectionist language congress is proposing.

The American public does not show any more signs of waking up because they are still ignorant and only react to soundbites. And don't be delusionaly about those in Congress from both parties wanting to take "serious" action. It was a golden opportunity to make serious political points to the folks back home but in the end, it will be very little difference now than it was 10 years ago or will be 10 years from now. The optimism for simple rationality is cute; whereas in reality, self-serving complexity is how things are run.

Yup. And Bishop is right - this is xenophobia, as well as a stupid strategic decision. Anytime idiots like Michelle Malkin and the Micheal Moore types are in agreement, your best bet is to take the opposite view.

Foreign Governments not foreigners. You need to be more specific. I couldnt care less if its a private entity that has clean ties to no terrorism, but foreign governments have no buisness running ours, or our infrastructure.

call me naiive but if you keep that train of thought things will never change. I still have hope that at some point politicians will begin to stand up and do what is right.

Excuse me, but foreign governments are run by foreigners; hence, the use the use of the word foreign.

So EVERYONE else is wrong and Bishop and 3% of America is right. Well, Im all for the undersog and swimming upstream but I also can make decisions on my own. For the fear that someday we could be at war with a foreign government it simply doesnt make sense to have foreign govt's run very important stuff for us. If it snowballs and many other things begin to be controlled by American entities good! Status Quo is not good enough and of course we only find out about things when theyre exposed, please dont start the Arles-type argument....we cant know ALL.

Where the fuck do you get your numbers? I mean seriously. :confused:

right I just want you to be more clear so you dont insinuate racism...which is the cute way of marginalizing those who are against this selling off of strategic things.

sorry, I didnt view that sarcastic statement as being needed to be grounded in fact.....

in fact its 21% of americans are in favor of allowing UAE to control the ports according to a CBS poll I searched for on the net.

hey you (edit to say - your side of the argument) threw this out there:



1. its not irrational
2. its not contempt
3. its not foreign peoples, BUT foreign governments