POL - Our ports under UAE control?

[MrBigglesworth]

The President has decided that it is ok for a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates to have control of six major US ports. This seems to me to be a bad idea. I would object to any foreign company in charge of that, and especially one from the Middle East. And on the radio I heard that Sean Hannity and Jay Severin both agree with me, so it's obviously not just an anti-Bush view. Can someone explain to me why this is a good idea?

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

The President has decided that it is ok for a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates to have control of six major US ports. This seems to me to be a bad idea. I would object to any foreign company in charge of that, and especially one from the Middle East. And on the radio I heard that Sean Hannity and Jay Severin both agree with me, so it's obviously not just an anti-Bush view. Can someone explain to me why this is a good idea?

Many politicians and media journalists are wanting more information on the subject. Up until this, I never realize our ports were privately-controlled.

[st.cronin]

I wouldn't think it would be too hard to kick them out should the need arise. I do understand the concern, though.

[Flasch186]

no

[Dutch]

Here's an exchange at the DoD Press Briefing today.
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...221-12543.html

Q Mr. Secretary, I'd like to ask you about government -- the U.S. government's decision to have a company from the UAE run six U.S. seaports. Is that a decision that the Defense Department weighed in on? And what, if any, national security issues do you think that raises?

SEC. RUMSFELD: First, let me say I'm not expert on this subject, and it -- my understanding that I've been told secondhand by others is the following: that there's a process that exists in the government; that six departments and agencies are involved, and five or six offices in the Executive Office of the President and the White House are involved; and there's a time limit of something like 30 days during which this process is to be executed; that the process worked; it was chaired by the Department of Treasury -- the deputy, Bob Kimmitt, is -- was the chairman -- and they -- in the normal order of things, what they do, as I understand it, is they select a lead agency or department based on the substance of it -- and in this case, it was Homeland Security, obviously, because the Coast Guard has the responsibility for the security of ports -- and that the process went forward; and in the course of it, the Department of Homeland Security and the interagency process negotiated a letter with the company that had purchased, I believe, a British company, setting forth exactly how security would be handled. I've not seen it, so I can't describe it, but that's my understanding.

And the -- I guess the only other thing I'd say is that we all deal with the UAE on a regular basis.

It's a country that's been involved in the global war on terror with us, it's a country that we have facilities that we use, and it's a country that was very responsive to assist in Katrina, one of the early countries that did that, and a country that we have very close military-to-military relations as well as political and economic relations.

Do you want to comment?

GEN. PACE: Sir, the military-to-military relationship with the United Arab Emirates is superb. They've got great seaports that are capable of handling, and do, our aircraft carriers. They've got airfields that they allow us to use, and their airspace, their logistics support. They've got a world-class air-to-air training facility that they let us use and cooperate with them in the training of our pilots. In everything that we have asked and work with them on, they have proven to be very, very solid partners. And as the Secretary said, they were the very first country -- a hundred million dollars is what they offered to Katrina victims.

SEC. RUMSFELD: I should add that I wasn't aware of this until this weekend, as I think is the case with Pete.

GEN. PACE: That's correct, sir, on the port --

SEC. RUMSFELD: Yeah. And I'm told that Deputy Secretary of Treasury Kimmitt and others will be briefing on this, who do have the background of the discussions and the information on it.

Q There was a Defense Department representative in the decision-making process? Is that what you're --

SEC. RUMSFELD: There were Defense Department and -- I think as I said, there were six departments that were involved in the process in one way or another, and the Defense Department was one of them. The lead was the Department of Homeland Security.

Q Are you confident that any problems with security -- from what you know, are you confident that any problems with security would not be greater with a UAE company running this than an American company?

SEC. RUMSFELD: I am reluctant to make judgments based on the minimal amount of information I have, because I just heard about this over the weekend. I'm told that nothing changes with respect to security under the contract, that the Coast Guard is in charge of security, not the corporation.

And the corporation -- is this correct?

GEN. PACE: Sir, that's true. And there are many companies in various ports around the United States that are not U.S.-owned that help do this kind of cargo handling. And of course, our Coast Guard are the ones who make the judgments about the security of the ports and how that all interfaces. And that was part of the dialogue, as I understand it, that took place amongst the various departments.

SEC. RUMSFELD: And the Coast Guard, of course, has the responsibility for the ports, and they should be the ones who would describe how it would be handled and why it is acceptable, because they signed off on it.

and later...

Q Mr. Secretary, I want to go back to the UAE port security issue. There's an undercurrent in all the stories in a lot of the political pronouncements that we can't trust an Arab country, especially one that had harbored --

SEC. RUMSFELD: Oh, I think that would be an unfortunate implication.

Q Two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the United Arab Emirates, and it's an undercurrent.

Can you address --

SEC. RUMSFELD: We've held people from the United States we've picked up in Afghanistan.

Q Oh, okay.

SEC. RUMSFELD: So I think it -- one ought not, in my view, to hold a country of origin responsible for every citizen they may have at any given time, particularly when people have multiple passports.

GEN. PACE: I understand that today there's like -- something like three U.S. citizens who today are going to be charged with being willing to try to kill U.S. citizens. So as I stated up front, the United Arab Emirates has been a very, very solid partner in our workings in the Gulf.

Q Do either of you have concerns that this debate may weaken our alliance, our relationship with the UAE if it turns out that, you know, they get pounded over this subject?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Most countries after a while understand the advantages and disadvantages of dealing with the United States. We have debates all the time, and we have public discussions and things are said and charges are hurled and allegations are made. And when the dust all settles, generally the truth comes out, and I would certainly think not, but -- and hope not -- but time will tell.

[Flasch186]

the companies that are owned by foreign entities are NOT companies that are owned by foreign governements especially those who recognized the Taliban as the rightful government of Afghanistan or refuses to recognize Israel as a sovereign nation. This is going to be bad for Bush all around, and if it comes to fruition it WILL weaken our security of our ports, which is abysmal already. Even if its .00000001% weaker, it is a possibility because it has become quite evident, no matter who doesnt want to admit it, but the muslim nations are the hotbed of anger against the West....so knowing that, the odds are higher that a closet terrorist could be hired by them, as with any outside management company, but somewhat heightened.

[cartman]

Surprise! It turns out that there are some pretty close WH ties to the port company.

hxxp://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/393375p-333478c.html

W aides' biz ties to Arab firm

BY MICHAEL McAULIFF
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

Breaking news update: Bush shrugs off objections to port deal

WASHINGTON - The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House.

One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose agency heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark's container port.

Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet.

The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.

The ties raised more concerns about the decision to give port control to a company owned by a nation linked to the 9/11 hijackers.

"The more you look at this deal, the more the deal is called into question," said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who said the deal was rubber-stamped in advance - even before DP World formally agreed to buy London's P&O port company.

Besides operations in New York and Jersey, Dubai would also run port facilities in Philadelphia, New Orleans, Baltimore and Miami.

The political fallout over the deal only grows.

"It's particularly troubling that the United States would turn over its port security not only to a foreign company, but a state-owned one," said western New York's Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee. Reynolds is responsible for helping Republicans keep their majority in the House.

Snow's Treasury Department runs the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., which includes 11 other agencies.

"It always raises flags" when administration officials have ties to a firm, Rep. Vito Fossella (R-S.I.) said, but insisted that stopping the deal was more important.

The Daily News has learned that lawmakers also want to know if a detailed 45-day probe should have been conducted instead of one that lasted no more than 25 days.

According to a 1993 congressional measure, the longer review is mandated when the company is owned by a foreign government and the purchase "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."

Congressional sources said the President has until March 2 to trigger that harder look.

"The most important thing is for someone to explain how this is consistent with our national security," Fossella said.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

the companies that are owned by foreign entities are NOT companies that are owned by foreign governements especially those who recognized the Taliban as the rightful government of Afghanistan or refuses to recognize Israel as a sovereign nation. This is going to be bad for Bush all around, and if it comes to fruition it WILL weaken our security of our ports, which is abysmal already. Even if its .00000001% weaker, it is a possibility because it has become quite evident, no matter who doesnt want to admit it, but the muslim nations are the hotbed of anger against the West....so knowing that, the odds are higher that a closet terrorist could be hired by them, as with any outside management company, but somewhat heightened.

I'll let Mr Rumsfeld field this one.

SEC. RUMSFELD: I am reluctant to make judgments based on the minimal amount of information I have, because I just heard about this over the weekend. I'm told that nothing changes with respect to security under the contract, that the Coast Guard is in charge of security, not the corporation.

And the corporation -- is this correct?

GEN. PACE: Sir, that's true. And there are many companies in various ports around the United States that are not U.S.-owned that help do this kind of cargo handling. And of course, our Coast Guard are the ones who make the judgments about the security of the ports and how that all interfaces. And that was part of the dialogue, as I understand it, that took place amongst the various departments.

SEC. RUMSFELD: And the Coast Guard, of course, has the responsibility for the ports, and they should be the ones who would describe how it would be handled and why it is acceptable, because they signed off on it.

[Flasch186]

it doesnt make any sense, it HAS to get weaker simply by having someone else do hiring on the port that has links, IM SORRY, is owned by THE FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, NOT the foreign corp. The corp. is owned by the country. It is intuitive that it would weaken the already crappy security at our ports by having it be run by another governemtn linked to all of the Facts I posted above.

[SFL Cat]

Well, if nothing else, it is a political fumble for Bush. I'm sure don't like the idea of the UAE running our ports.

[Poli]

One letter off from the ports being under MY control!

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Well, if nothing else, it is a political fumble for Bush. I'm sure don't like the idea of the UAE running our ports.

Yeah, this makes absolutely no sense for an administration that has been pushing the limits of our civil liberties and has started two wars all in the name of security.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by ardent enthusiast

One letter off from the ports being under MY control!

I'm all for it.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'll let Mr Rumsfeld field this one.

Why, exactly? Don't you find it a little odd that by his own admission, the Secretary of Defense was not consulted at all on this pending transaction? Presumably the Department of Defense would be in some sort of position to comment on any potential security issues this would raise, right?

So what is it? Is Rumsfeld relevant, or is he not?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'll let Mr Rumsfeld field this one.

SEC. RUMSFELD: I am reluctant to make judgments based on the minimal amount of information I have, because I just heard about this over the weekend.

Originally Posted by ThinkProgress

Donald Rumsfeld, as Secretary of Defense, is a member of Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States. As such, he was one of the people who, according to the Treasury Department, unanimously approved the sale on February 13. How could do that when he didn’t even find out about the sale until last weekend?

So either Rummy, as the SecDef, is completely out of the loop on national defense issues, or lying. Either does not bode well for our national defense.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Why, exactly? Don't you find it a little odd that by his own admission, the Secretary of Defense was not consulted at all on this pending transaction? Presumably the Department of Defense would be in some sort of position to comment on any potential security issues this would raise, right?

So what is it? Is Rumsfeld relevant, or is he not?

You certainly would think so...especially considering that he's on the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, and thus one of the people who approved the sale. On February 13. A week before he claims to have known anything about the matter.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Here's an exchange at the DoD Press Briefing today.
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...221-12543.html

and later...

Dutch, could you explain for me, in your own words, why this is a good thing for America? Does is cost less to have Dubai run our national security? Is that savings enough to offset the potential harm of having another state handle matters of national security? I don't see the benefit here.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I wouldn't think it would be too hard to kick them out should the need arise. I do understand the concern, though.

I don't think it's "kicking them out" which is the concern. I think the concern is that U.A.E. has many black marks against it, most of which are very relevant to port security.

For instance, the investigation into A.Q. Kahn, the Pakistani scientist who sold nuclear secrets, has unearthed evidence that nuclear components were shipped to North Korea, Libya and Iran through Dubai.

Secondly, the FBI believes that a good amount of the money used to finance 9/11 went through U.A.E.'s banking system.

Lastly, Treasury and other departments have complained about some of UAE's lack of cooperation in helping with terrorism-related investigations after 9/11.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Does is cost less to have Dubai run our national security?

I'm on your side on this one, but that is an outrageous, preposterous piece of typing.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Why, exactly? Don't you find it a little odd that by his own admission, the Secretary of Defense was not consulted at all on this pending transaction? Presumably the Department of Defense would be in some sort of position to comment on any potential security issues this would raise, right?

So what is it? Is Rumsfeld relevant, or is he not?

The dude is in charge of the biggest beuracracy in this country. Perhaps the situation was being dealt with by these 5 or 6 different agencies and the question of security came up and one of the different agencies told him, "It stays the same, the Coast Guard is responsible."

At that level, you have to have some sort of trust in your people. Rumsfeld is the head of the Defense Department, not the expert port authority! He gets his info from those experts and division heads. I can guarantee you that if you trust the people you work with, and they are the subject-matter experts and they say, "Honestly, not politically speaking, this is the right thing to do (i.e. let this transaction take place) and security remains the same", you have to trust your people in that situation. You heed their advice and you make a decision based on that advice.

Should Rumsfeld be in on every single last meeting and decision that takes place in the Department of Defense? It would be a nice luxury. Is that remotely possible? Of course not. That's what delegation is about. The Department of Defense could never be run successfully without trusting the trained leaders up and down the chain. From an NCO on the battlefield in Iraq to the head of homeland security. You have to trust these guys and have to trust they have been trained to do their jobs and provide the proper information to their leadership.

[Crapshoot]

Dear god, this is remarkably stupid - American companies own foreign companies- why not vice-versa ? Bush is dead on accurate about this - the people criticizing him from the left and the right are pandering to the Anti-Arab and the protectionists, two groups that are generally pretty useless.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The dude is in charge of the biggest beuracracy in this country. Perhaps the situation was being dealt with by these 5 or 6 different agencies and the question of security came up and one of the different agencies told him, "It stays the same, the Coast Guard is responsible."

At that level, you have to have some sort of trust in your people. Rumsfeld is the head of the Defense Department, not the expert port authority! He gets his info from those experts and division heads. I can guarantee you that if you trust the people you work with, and they are the subject-matter experts and they say, "Honestly, not politically speaking, this is the right thing to do (i.e. let this transaction take place) and security remains the same", you have to trust your people in that situation. You heed their advice and you make a decision based on that advice.

Should Rumsfeld be in on every single last meeting and decision that takes place in the Department of Defense? It would be a nice luxury. Is that remotely possible? Of course not. That's what delegation is about. The Department of Defense could never be run successfully without trusting the trained leaders up and down the chain. From an NCO on the battlefield in Iraq to the head of homeland security. You have to trust these guys and have to trust they have been trained to do their jobs and provide the proper information to their leadership.

Dutch, read my post. It's not that he's in charge of Defense, it's that he's on the committee specifically designed to deal with issues like this, and yet claims not to know about it. We're not talking about 5 or 6 different agencies. We're talking about one committee.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The dude is in charge of the biggest beuracracy in this country. Perhaps the situation was being dealt with by these 5 or 6 different agencies and the question of security came up and one of the different agencies told him, "It stays the same, the Coast Guard is responsible."

At that level, you have to have some sort of trust in your people. Rumsfeld is the head of the Defense Department, not the expert port authority! He gets his info from those experts and division heads. I can guarantee you that if you trust the people you work with, and they are the subject-matter experts and they say, "Honestly, not politically speaking, this is the right thing to do (i.e. let this transaction take place) and security remains the same", you have to trust your people in that situation. You heed their advice and you make a decision based on that advice.

Should Rumsfeld be in on every single last meeting and decision that takes place in the Department of Defense? It would be a nice luxury. Is that remotely possible? Of course not. That's what delegation is about. The Department of Defense could never be run successfully without trusting the trained leaders up and down the chain. From an NCO on the battlefield in Iraq to the head of homeland security. You have to trust these guys and have to trust they have been trained to do their jobs and provide the proper information to their leadership.

Sorry Dutch, that is a pretty weak arguement. When he is a direct member of the committee that makes the decision on this, that is an entirely different meeting than the one to decide how much to pay for toilet seats on a C-130.

[Dutch]

Some of ya'll act like your on the foreign investments committee. Why didn't you bring this up sooner?

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Dear god, this is remarkably stupid.....

That about sums it up for me.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Some of ya'll act like your on the foreign investments committee. Why didn't you bring this up sooner?

That's your response?

Hell, we evidently knew as much about it as the guy who approved the sale.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Dear god, this is remarkably stupid - American companies own foreign companies- why not vice-versa ? Bush is dead on accurate about this - the people criticizing him from the left and the right are pandering to the Anti-Arab and the protectionists, two groups that are generally pretty useless.

I can see that pov. It does seem like ado about nothing. I certainly wouldn't dismiss the concerns out of hand, though, given the emphasis on security we have these days.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

That's your response?

Hell, we evidently knew as much about it as the guy who approved the sale.

I suspect you've heard everything you wanted to hear.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I suspect you've heard everything you wanted to hear.

As have you.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Dear god, this is remarkably stupid - American companies own foreign companies- why not vice-versa ? Bush is dead on accurate about this - the people criticizing him from the left and the right are pandering to the Anti-Arab and the protectionists, two groups that are generally pretty useless.

but does the american govt own foreign countries? some might even answer yes to that but that is the MSOT accurate analogy...it is NOT simply a foreign company, THAT company is run and owned by the Foreign governemtn itself.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I suspect you've heard everything you wanted to hear.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge something so blatant isn't surprising. I'd say it's disappointing, but you've done it so many times in the past.

Pathetic.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I suspect you've heard everything you wanted to hear.

I knew your stance before this thread was even put on here so thats moot. Bu some on here are not comparing the apples to the apples. The UAE has done everything I listed and some more Like AQ khan, and it is THAT COUNTRY that would be running our ports via their company. Its not simply a foreign company buying it, it IS a foreign country buying it.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I'm on your side on this one, but that is an outrageous, preposterous piece of typing.

I think ports are a big part of our national security. In fact, I think that is why people are upset. And we are paying the UAE to take it over.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I knew your stance before this thread was even put on here so thats moot. Bu some on here are not comparing the apples to the apples. The UAE has done everything I listed and some more Like AQ khan, and it is THAT COUNTRY that would be running our ports via their company. Its not simply a foreign company buying it, it IS a foreign country buying it.

At least I don't pretend to be unpredictable.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Dear god, this is remarkably stupid - American companies own foreign companies- why not vice-versa ? Bush is dead on accurate about this - the people criticizing him from the left and the right are pandering to the Anti-Arab and the protectionists, two groups that are generally pretty useless.

Ok, but why is it good to have any foreign state in control of our ports?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I think ports are a big part of our national security. In fact, I think that is why people are upset. And we are paying the UAE to take it over.

If security falls under the control of the Coast Guard, as it does now apparently, then what's the problem? Do brown people scare you?

[NoMyths]

Ok, here's a separate issue: why would President Bush promise to veto any bill Congress would approve to block the agreement?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Dear god, this is remarkably stupid - American companies own foreign companies- why not vice-versa ? Bush is dead on accurate about this - the people criticizing him from the left and the right are pandering to the Anti-Arab and the protectionists, two groups that are generally pretty useless.

I agree with this. Much ado about nothing. Kind of like people who freak out that Citgo is owned by Chavez's Venezuela.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Ok, here's a separate issue: why would President Bush promise to veto any bill Congress would approve to block the agreement?

"It sends a terrible signal to friends around the world that it's OK for a company from one country to manage the port, but not a country that plays by the rules and has got a good track record from another part of the world," Bush said.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

At least I don't pretend to be unpredictable.

you just dont know me well...I NEVER pretend anything except when Im getting paid to do so (Id throw a sarcatic BEEEYOTCH!! at the end of that but Im afraid youll take it seriously and get all mad so only apply it if you can take it as a joke)

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

If security falls under the control of the Coast Guard, as it does now apparently, then what's the problem? Do brown people scare you?

Spare me Dutch, it doesn't mean anything to me to have you, who for the past year has been telling me we have to invade all brown people countries to have peace, ask me if brown people scare me.

What exactly is Dubai doing in the ports? How does their presence have no effect on the security there? Why should any foreign state be in control of our ports??

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

"It sends a terrible signal to friends around the world that it's OK for a company from one country to manage the port, but not a country that plays by the rules and has got a good track record from another part of the world," Bush said.

even thats messed up, he's comparing a foreign company to a foreign country, they are NOT the same thing.

[Daimyo]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Dear god, this is remarkably stupid - American companies own foreign companies- why not vice-versa ? Bush is dead on accurate about this - the people criticizing him from the left and the right are pandering to the Anti-Arab and the protectionists, two groups that are generally pretty useless.

It would be fine if it were just a foreign company (it was previously a British company), but is it so clear cut when the foreign company in question is owned by a foreign government?

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Dutch

"It sends a terrible signal to friends around the world that it's OK for a company from one country to manage the port, but not a country that plays by the rules and has got a good track record from another part of the world," Bush said.

So he believes a Republican controlled Congress is willing to send such a signal? And the will of the American people supercedes their representatives to such a degree on this issue that he needs to take it into his own hands to correct the wrong?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

If security falls under the control of the Coast Guard, as it does now apparently, then what's the problem? Do brown people scare you?

Radical Muslims do me.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

So he believes a Republican controlled Congress is willing to send such a signal? And the will of the American people supercedes their representatives to such a degree on this issue that he needs to take it into his own hands to correct the wrong?

Well c'mon, you know how much Bush cares about our reputation in the world.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Radical Muslims do me.

Now, where were you to back me up when Mr Bigglesworth's runs amok with the brown people talk? I feel so let down.

[Flasch186]

Brown People does not equal Radical Muslims. I know many a brown person who is muslim and not radical or not muslim at all.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I think ports are a big part of our national security. In fact, I think that is why people are upset. And we are paying the UAE to take it over.

You're not ever going to get me to take you seriously as long as you express yourself like that.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Brown People does not equal Radical Muslims. I know many a brown person who is muslim and not radical or not muslim at all.

But not people from Dubai, right? They are all a bunch of brown terrorists?

Do I have this line of questioning in Mr Biggleworth fashion down well enough?