We could just send AQ plane tickets and visas...

[Proletariat]

WASHINGTON: Members of Congress and the Bush administration are at odds over whether security is compromised by an Arab company’s takeover of operations at six major American seaports.

Some lawmakers expressed concern Sunday that the safeguards are insufficient to thwart infiltration of the vital facilities by terrorists.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1422050.cms

How can you possibly ensure against infiltration and corruption in this case? Anyone else think it's beyond belief that a company from a country with links to the 9/11 attacks is being trusted to pull security on six major US ports? Well, Chertoff thinks it's a good idea so it must be safe and sound.

:laugh4:

[Proletariat]

Erm, go Hillary...?


WASHINGTON, Feb 17 (Reuters) - Two U.S. Democratic senators said on Friday they would introduce legislation aimed at blocking Dubai Ports World from buying a company that operates several U.S. shipping ports because of security concerns.

Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Hillary Clinton of New York said they would offer a measure to ban companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from acquiring U.S. port operations.

http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=URI:urn:newsml:reuters.com:20060217:MTFH94334_2006-02-17_19-18-57_N17277829:1

[GoreBag]

Just post armed guards at every port and beat the hell out of every Arab who shows up there. Problem solved. :dizzy2:

[Papewaio]

Since when was the UAE involved in 911?

Talk about blanket blame. "All Arabs and all Arab companies are now personally involved in terrorism and the only terrorists are Arabs."

So remake the consitution: All are equal regardless or race, creed or religion except Arabs.

Personally I think this is an attempt to stop free trade by using racist tactics.

You guys should hang your heads in shame.

[Proletariat]

Two of the 19 9/11 hijackers were citizens of Dubai, the Arab emirate whose bid to run ports in New York, New Jersey and four other cities was okayed by the White House even though investigators have found signs that money used to finance terrorism flowed through Dubai banks.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/393038p-333284c.html

[Papewaio]

Yes 2 men = the entire country must be raving terrorists.

[Proletariat]

Since when was the UAE involved in 911?

Talk about blanket blame. "All Arabs and all Arab companies are now personally involved in terrorism and the only terrorists are Arabs."


Since all members of Al Quaeda have Arabic backgrounds, I don't see how this can be written off so quickly as blanket blame.



Personally I think this is an attempt to stop free trade by using racist tactics.


Just a gut feeling or can you back this up at all?

[Don Corleone]

Since when was the UAE involved in 911?


Uhm, Pape, you're usually much better than this. Even if you didn't know, you could have done a simple Google search and seen that Marwan al-Shehhi, the pilot of the 2nd plane, was a UAE national (and veteran for that matter).


Personally I think this is an attempt to stop free trade by using racist tactics.

You guys should hang your heads in shame.

Based on the amount of money that has flowed into terrorist groups from the UAE, as well as Saudi Arabia, it's hard to justify allowing such a secure role going to them. Then again, our ports aren't very secure (ABC news has shipped depleted Uranium from overseas into Oakland harbor twice).

Pape, surely you can understand a certain amount of apprehension here, based on the history and the connections. That being said, does anyone really believe that having the Blind Sheikh himself running our port facilities could make them any less secure? Is such a thing possible? :skull:

[solypsist]

It could be a cruel joke to give the US people the idea that now the ports are under attack. Approve a policy, let the media, and especially FOX, talk about the dangers and the chance of increased terrorism, reap the rewards of a more fearful society. Just throwing it out there.

[Don Corleone]

I find this whole newsstory odd and strange on many levels.

Not many issues have Mike Savage of the Savage Nation (one very, very scary talk-radio individual) coming out and singing Charles Schummer's praises, and taking Bush to task in the same breath.

Talk about strange bedfellows...

[Xiahou]

Well, I think this is all rather stupid. Security at our ports is and will continue to be controlled by the coast guard. This is a huge international company that operates ports all over the world- not some fly-by-night AlQaeda front group. These ports were already operated by a foreign company, and they will still be afterwards- staffed by the same American unionized longshoremen.

So what am I missing? Where's the problem?

[Leet Eriksson]

Woot finally, some UAE criticism.

Now look kids:


Uhm, Pape, you're usually much better than this. Even if you didn't know, you could have done a simple Google search and seen that Marwan al-Shehhi, the pilot of the 2nd plane, was a UAE national (and veteran for that matter).

You know, i know the Shehi family personally, back in 85 some UAE nationals went to afghanistan, among them is this marwan fellow.

The shehi's are not really arab, but from the shuhooh minority group, a very, very conservative group. But still marwan was a fringe element, not even respresentative of his own family.


Based on the amount of money that has flowed into terrorist groups from the UAE, as well as Saudi Arabia, it's hard to justify allowing such a secure role going to them. Then again, our ports aren't very secure (ABC news has shipped depleted Uranium from overseas into Oakland harbor twice).

We froze al qaeda accounts as soon as it was revealed it was them who did 9/11.


Just a gut feeling or can you back this up at all?

No need to back it up, the US has its fair amount of douches you know, becuase seriously why would there be an article talking about an Arabic company buying US companies on US territory in the first place?

In the UAE we have US companies on arab territory, buying arab companies. But i don't see anyone complaining.

[Don Corleone]

The shehi's are not really arab, but from the shuhooh minority group, a very, very conservative group. But still marwan was a fringe element, not even respresentative of his own family.

As far as I know, the complaint is about a UAE company, not Arabs in general. Regardless of the man's ethnicity, he represents your country and is indicative of a fairly strong anti-US slant, some deserved, some not so deserved. I don't think anybody's talking about a majority of people, but would it really take a majority of the UAE's citizens to wreak some serious havok?


We froze al qaeda accounts as soon as it was revealed it was them who did 9/11.

So, you continued to allow Al-Queda to use your financial institutions to funnel money around the globe after the African embassy bombings, the bombing of the Kobai (spell?) towers and the bombing of the USS Cole, all of which were known to have been perpetrated by Al-Queda. Uhm, you're not helping yourself here Faisal....

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Yes 2 men = the entire country must be raving terrorists.
UAE only has like 10 people. :laugh4:

[Papewaio]

Since all members of Al Quaeda have Arabic backgrounds, I don't see how this can be written off so quickly as blanket blame.

So what if all the members of Al Quaeda are Arabic. All the IRA are Irish.

Does that make all Irish terrorists? When did you last see Americans banning Irish companies from investing in USA?



Just a gut feeling or can you back this up at all?

USA has some very strange ideas when it comes to free trade. For foreign companies that have raw products (agriculture or mining) to get their products sold in the USA it is often easiest acheived by buying USA companies that use the raw goods. Blocks to foreign investment or trade can be found in many of the areas that USA does not compete very well in.

USA's actions when it comes to free trade are no where near the hype. In this case it is using unsavoury tactics for protectionist activities.


Uhm, Pape, you're usually much better than this. Even if you didn't know, you could have done a simple Google search and seen that Marwan al-Shehhi, the pilot of the 2nd plane, was a UAE national (and veteran for that matter).

So what? That does not mean the entire nation of UAE is in on the plot anymore then Timothy McVeighs actions meant that Olkaholma was in on the plot.

Mind you using this logic maybe the prisoner abuse in the USA military should be used to sum up the entire USA military. Do you really want to say that the entire USA military was behind the abuse of prisoners or that it was a systemic failure in a section of the military?

Does Clinton taking advantage of the intern make all married males scumbags who lie and cheat on their wives?

[Proletariat]

So what if all the members of Al Quaeda are Arabic. All the IRA are Irish.

Does that make all Irish terrorists? When did you last see Americans banning Irish companies from investing in USA?


Would you hire an Irish company to pull security on Manchester's shopping centers?


USA has some very strange ideas when it comes to free trade. For foreign companies that have raw products (agriculture or mining) to get their products sold in the USA it is often easiest acheived by buying USA companies that use the raw goods. Blocks to foreign investment or trade can be found in many of the areas that USA does not compete very well in.

Thanks for the explanation. I don't buy it, but I can see at least what you're saying. A country with a history of links to terrorism wants a contract to run port operations in the US. William of Occam's head is spinning.

[Don Corleone]

So what? That does not mean the entire nation of UAE is in on the plot anymore then Timothy McVeighs actions meant that Olkaholma was in on the plot.

Mind you using this logic maybe the prisoner abuse in the USA military should be used to sum up the entire USA military. Do you really want to say that the entire USA military was behind the abuse of prisoners or that it was a systemic failure in a section of the military?

Does Clinton taking advantage of the intern make all married males scumbags who lie and cheat on their wives?

Actually, I'd argue that Timothy McVeigh did make all single white male veterans with conservative political leanings suspect. Hell, Republicans in general were grouped together as one Hertz rental away from their own Oklahoma city bombing. At one point, Reno proposed a ban on the use of Nitrogen based fertilizers and said this was why we couldn't trust people to personal firearms ownership.

Frankly, I've seen Tachi, Idaho and not a few others make broad sweeping generalizations about the American military, based on the photos coming out of Abu Grahib (sp? dammit)

Look, it may not be right, and in an ideal society, maybe even a former madras leader from Pakistan would be put in charge of the Nuclear Regulatory Agency. But the fact is, people do tend to generalize. In some ways, this is helpful. It may be inaccurate in the particular, but in the general, trend analysis points you in the right direction.

Finally, like I said earlier, you're barking up the wrong tree with me on this one. We could put Zarqawi in charge of INS and we'd probably see a decrease in the numbers of illegals flowing into this country. Before we go giving grief to some UAE shipping & port facilities company, we ought to be mending some pretty gaping holes in our fences here at home.

[Xiahou]

USA's actions when it comes to free trade are no where near the hype. In this case it is using unsavoury tactics for protectionist activities.I think you're missing the mark there- the ports are already operated by a foreign company, so I don't see where protectionism comes in.

One theory I have is that Democrats started this issue to attempt to show their 'tough on security' creds. And afraid of being outdone, Republican lawmakers are rushing to sign onto it.

But who knows? This really does seem to be a trumped up story though. :shrug:

[GoreBag]

William of Occam's head is spinning.

He was into simplicity, not reductionism.

[Leet Eriksson]

As far as I know, the complaint is about a UAE company, not Arabs in general. Regardless of the man's ethnicity, he represents your country and is indicative of a fairly strong anti-US slant, some deserved, some not so deserved. I don't think anybody's talking about a majority of people, but would it really take a majority of the UAE's citizens to wreak some serious havok?

Jeez, will you read why he hates the US?

The US basically told the arabs to go to afghanistan, I don't need to remind you who was praising the mujahideen 24/7. Maybe Marwan having close ties with al qaeda has something to do with it.

Nah, the UAE people hate the US.. yeah totally, becuase this one guy blew himself up.


So, you continued to allow Al-Queda to use your financial institutions to funnel money around the globe after the African embassy bombings, the bombing of the Kobai (spell?) towers and the bombing of the USS Cole, all of which were known to have been perpetrated by Al-Queda. Uhm, you're not helping yourself here Faisal....

you know accounts don't have "THIS IS AL QAEDA (tm) BANK ACCOUNT" plastered all over them, it takes time to find links, names and people involved.

And its not one universal bank account, and by the by, the US didn't freeze them before 9/11 i hear. Rather didn't announce freezing them, you know, like using the media, to spice up US relations and keep a decent image.

[Papewaio]

Look, it may not be right, and in an ideal society, maybe even a former madras leader from Pakistan would be put in charge of the Nuclear Regulatory Agency. But the fact is, people do tend to generalize. In some ways, this is helpful. It may be inaccurate in the particular, but in the general, trend analysis points you in the right direction.


I am not against ruling out individuals who have done wrong. I am against blanket blame on groups because of the actions of individuals. To say that all UAE citizens and companies are terrorists because of the actions of a few is wrong. To ban Osama Bin Laden from buying the ports would be the sane and just thing to do.

BTW the head of the IAEA is Egyptian...

[Proletariat]

He was into simplicity, not reductionism.

Right. So if I was trying to reduce the issue into tiny pieces for an easier explanation, your comment would make sense. Pape is leaning towards this being motivated by protectionism when the terrorism concern (hysteria, if you please) is already obvious.

[Don Corleone]

I am not against ruling out individuals who have done wrong. I am against blanket blame on groups because of the actions of individuals. To say that all UAE citizens and companies are terrorists because of the actions of a few is wrong. To ban Osama Bin Laden from buying the ports would be the sane and just thing to do.

BTW the head of the IAEA is Egyptian...

Well, if you have the time to dig and research the personal history, views and actions of each and every individual you meet or hear about in the press, your work and home life keep you far less busy than mine keep me.

We all stereotype. Conservative Texas lawmaker, long history of business dealings with the oil industry. Has ties to conservative religious groups and has announced on more than one public occassion that he feels that God has a special plan for America. Who am I talking about, George W Bush? A Republican for sure, right? Nope. Lloyd Bentson.

I don't have it in for Arabs and I don't have it in for the UAE. One more time, read what I wrote. I said I could understand, for reasons other than racist greed which you immediately jumped to. I also said I couldn't see how they, or anyone, could do much worse of a job than is currently going on.

But let's not kid ourselves here. There is a large portion of the Middle East that hates America and would happily do us harm, and they've worked themselves into such a tizzy about it, they've convinced themselves that killing Americans is a good thing. Some of their anger is justifiable, some stems from jealousy and envy. It may be just a minority, as we frequently hear, but it's not like you can tell who's capable of violence and who can't before they act.

[GoreBag]

Right. So if I was trying to reduce the issue into tiny pieces for an easier explanation, your comment would make sense. Pape is leaning towards this being motivated by protectionism when the terrorism concern (hysteria, if you please) is already obvious.

Even though you're skirting the issue and only indirectly presenting your opinion, it would seem that you're equating UAE citizens and companies with terrorism. "Don't let them buy our ports because we'll get bombed" is a reductionist statement. Pape is just cutting the reduction halfway through and jabbing you for the inherent racism in the logic.

[Tribesman]

Would you hire an Irish company to pull security on Manchester's shopping centers?
Isn't that shopping centre that was bombed now owned by an Irish businessman ?

[Don Corleone]

Even though you're skirting the issue and only indirectly presenting your opinion, it would seem that you're equating UAE citizens and companies with terrorism. "Don't let them buy our ports because we'll get bombed" is a reductionist statement. Pape is just cutting the reduction halfway through and jabbing you for the inherent racism in the logic.

Oh yeah, absolutely. Anyone who has the collasal gall to assume there are those in the Middle East who wish to do Westerners harm must be racist. Yeah, who's being guilty of reductionist thinking...

[Proletariat]

Even though you're skirting the issue and only indirectly presenting your opinion, it would seem that you're equating UAE citizens and companies with terrorism. "Don't let them buy our ports because we'll get bombed" is a reductionist statement. Pape is just cutting the reduction halfway through and jabbing you for the inherent racism in the logic.

No, you and he are both jumping to conclusions if you think my position is racist. Do you think Hillary Clinton or Chuck Schumer are racists?

I'm beginning to wonder if it is such a big deal, like Xiahou asked. I also agree wholeheartedly with Don that there certainly are bigger fish to fry when it comes to our security. But to just jump to the racism/greed motive is as stupid as me accusing you and Pape of hoping for more attacks on the US.

Now, up above you say I'm equating UAE citizens and companies with terrorism. Of course I've said nothing of the sort, but it doesn't matter anyway. Whether all UAE citizens are terrorists or not, the fact that two members of the 9/11 attacks and funds to AQ have come from or gone through the UAE should be enough to give pause to this whole deal.

Sorry for the over the top title, but don't throw this racism crap at me.

[GoreBag]

Oh yeah, absolutely. Anyone who has the collasal gall to assume there are those in the Middle East who wish to do Westerners harm must be racist. Yeah, who's being guilty of reductionist thinking...

Colossal.

Saying that allowing a company based in the UAE to purchase US ports is equivalent to offering plane tickets and citizenship to terrorists is reductionism. To say that there is no racism in the statement is moronic. Admit it. Yeah, there are plenty of people everywhere 'who wish to do the Westerners harm', but it's not like the US is willing to tuck itself into an international fetal position to protect itself from potential 'harm'.

Prole: Why don't you just come out and offer your opinion, complete and without sarcasm, instead of offering up such clever quips as "give the AQ visas!" and "if so-and-so thinks it's a good idea, it MUST be good for Amurrica!"?

[Don Corleone]

Colossal.

Thanks. Me vewy stupood and me glad you heer to make me smart.

Discussion over. If your best lead is attacking a silly spelling mistake, you're not somebody I care to treat seriously.

[GoreBag]

Thanks. Me vewy stupood and me glad you heer to make me smart.

Discussion over. If your best lead is attacking a silly spelling mistake, you're not somebody I care to treat seriously.

I seem to remember you saying that before, actually. And to think I'd been forgiven.

How are those prayers going, anyway?

[Papewaio]

Ruling out a company's investment because of its genetic makeup is racist.

Pure and simple.

=][=


How can you possibly ensure against infiltration and corruption in this case?

Surely that is classic prejudice to mark the whole for the actions of a few.


Hillary Clinton and other senators are populists, if the voters are afraid due to hysteria they are the kind of people who will pander to the fears of the electorate to garner votes.

I think ruling out a company from investing in the USA because it is an Arab company is racist.

I think ruling out a company that has direct ties to terrorism or finances it is legitmate.

[Don Corleone]

I don't really expect much else from GoreBag, but who peed in your Cheerios this morning Pape? I really expect better from you then "if you don't agree with me, you're nothing but a racist".

You caught us Papewaio. GoreBag already pointed it out, and you're here to finish the job. Congrats, you guys win! I am just too damn stupid and racist to discuss this any further.

[GoreBag]

How nice, a parting cheap shot before you worm your way out of the discussion.

I wouldn't say you're stupid, Don, but you're definitely putting on a show of being obtuse.

[Papewaio]

I am basing it on the report...


WASHINGTON: Members of Congress and the Bush administration are at odds over whether security is compromised by an Arab company’s takeover of operations at six major American seaports.

To get upset that it is an Arab company is racist.

Now is the report had said:


WASHINGTON: Members of Congress and the Bush administration are at odds over whether security is compromised by an Arab company’s takeover of operations at six major American seaports. This company has several board members implicity involved in terrorism and has been shipping arms to conflict zones.

To get upset with an arms dealer and terrorist group is logical.

====

Wouldn't you get upset if you were told that USA companies cannot invest overseas because of the actions of a couple of its citizens?

I know I would get annoyed if Australian companies were told they cannot invest overseas because of the actions of a couple of its nutters. I would also question the underlying motives of why they were blocked and the personal gain for those doing the blocking. I would also call it racist against Australians and anti-free trade to stop Australian companies from investing based on the actions of extremists that the vast majority of the nation do not like.

Nor do I like hysteria or simplistic thinking.

Just because I see a black crow does not mean all birds are black.

[Xiahou]

I'm beginning to wonder if it is such a big deal, like Xiahou asked. I also agree wholeheartedly with Don that there certainly are bigger fish to fry when it comes to our security. But to just jump to the racism/greed motive is as stupid as me accusing you and Pape of hoping for more attacks on the US.I looked around just a little and the only bone of contention that I could find would be that this company is at least partially owned by the UAE itself. Personally, I dont think it's very 'free market' of us to be supported state-run business- not really a big security concern though, in my mind.

That's not to say ports arent a security concern- they are. But, I dont think it's going to matter much where the company the manages them is based.

[Papewaio]

Of course compared with buying half a dozen ports and then destroying what you own it would be very easy to buy a yacht, put a nuke in the lead lined keel. Sail into any harbour in the world. Capsize the yacht and detonate the bomb.

[Major Robert Dump]

I think you're missing the mark there- the ports are already operated by a foreign company, so I don't see where protectionism comes in.

One theory I have is that Democrats started this issue to attempt to show their 'tough on security' creds. And afraid of being outdone, Republican lawmakers are rushing to sign onto it.

But who knows? This really does seem to be a trumped up story though. :shrug:


I knew as soon as you guys saw the words Democrats and Hilary you would immediately dismiss it.

But for the record, the entire issue was brought to light by 5 Republicans, who were ignored by the white house, but the democrats actually ended up being the first ones to threaten

And theres a lawsuit from an "unwilling partner" of the agreement

And maritime law states that in international ports, security personnel on land for said company do not need to be United States citizens, which is where most people have a problem with this. What's next, Habib from Saudi Arabia working the scanner at the airport?

It's all about the money, honey

[rory_20_uk]

If George "put the gooks in Guantanamo" Bush is happy, I think the risk is slight; as has been pointed out, if one wishes to commit atrocities without culpability there are fear easier and cheaper ways of doing so.

American companies are all over Iraq - a country America DID attack - and that's fine, apparently.

And there is no alteration to the law concerning the nationality of staff. Do you really think a new company is going to sack all the workers, fly in a new bunch from the Middle East merely to spite America?

IMO it's a scary mix of bias and paranoia.

~:smoking:

[Byzantine Mercenary]

usually in these instances the threat that is most shouted about is lesser then you would expect, if a rich organisation like alqieda wanted to get operatives into america they would.
Just think how spies and such have always been able to infiltrate countrys whatever the security during the world wars, the cold war etc and don't forget america is a big country, all they would need would be 20 or so people to get in and theres enough for an attack.

[Kanamori]

Much ado about nothing.

The government can still, obviously, enact more requirements about how ports may be run, besides ones that are already existing. So, if the laws are proper anyways, I have no idea how the company can change anything, especially if their progress is monitored by some government agency. In short, the company cannot be the problem, and I doubt they will be bringing many Arabs over here to run the ports, since some seem concerned that they will necessarily risk security. This whole nonsense can only harm our relations more with the Arab world, and I feel that having business connections with the UAE, blossoming even more when they're airplane stuff takes off, would be a very good thing. Not only do both parties gain from moving into new markets, monetarily, but both areas of the world in general gain closer relations that are absolutely necessary.

Hillary is pulling a typical Democrat move and playing to irrational fears.

[Leet Eriksson]

Anyways just in-case you people are still afraid, IF that dubai based company blew shit up in the USA i'll be personally on the fore front to call for a total take over the UAE by the US, in fact i'll be more than happy.

All it takes to conquer the UAE are the 3 US bases in the country anyway, just spill in the countryside and mess crap up. Oh and the several US battleships docked in sharjah, only takes about... what.. 30 seconds to destroy the entire infrastructure of the UAE.

So no need to be afraid.

[KukriKhan]

Anyways just in-case you people are still afraid, IF that dubai based company blew shit up in the USA i'll be personally on the fore front to call for a total take over the UAE by the US, in fact i'll be more than happy.

All it takes to conquer the UAE are the 3 US bases in the country anyway, just spill in the countryside and mess crap up. Oh and the several US battleships docked in sharjah, only takes about... what.. 30 seconds to destroy the entire infrastructure of the UAE.

So no need to be afraid.

Ha!:laugh4: Our own Fifth Column guy in UAE points out the "goose - gander" argument. Brilliant faisal.

If we're gonna insist on US ownership and maintenance of our infrastructure, I guess that puts the Kabosh on this deal http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060202/news_1n2tollroad.html
where Indiana wants to have a Spain/Austalia consortium run one of their toll roads for 75 years.

[solypsist]

after further research, i don't think it's a good idea. also, it seems bush is determined to let the uae have this security contract - why? he's never used a veto his entire presidency, but now suddenly he's threatening to use it if this deal does not go through? i wonder who is profiting from this little excercise?

anyway, som data (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/17/ports-uae/) i found:


– The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

– The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.

– According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.

– After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.

[Proletariat]

Even if you think the security will be top notch under these guys and Dubai is in your top three of places-you've-never-been-to-but-want-to-very-soon (like it is mine), is this really the best we can do?

Yet some people think this is about genetics. Oh well.

[Slyspy]

Its not what you say, but the way that you say it, thats what gets results!

[Xiahou]

after further research, i don't think it's a good idea. also, it seems bush is determined to let the uae have this security contract - why? he's never used a veto his entire presidency, but now suddenly he's threatening to use it if this deal does not go through? i wonder who is profiting from this little excercise?Admit it- it was Bush's support for it that really made you reconsider wasnt it? ~;p


Even if you think the security will be top notch under these guys and Dubai is in your top three of places-you've-never-been-to-but-want-to-very-soon (like it is mine), is this really the best we can do?Security isnt their responsibility afaik- it is currently and will continue to be handled by Homeland Security / Coast Guard. All the company handles is the loading and unloading of cargo, and it will be the same American, unionized, laborers doing that work that were doing the work when it was under control of a British company.

[KukriKhan]

But I'll give the opposition this: if Congress wants to step up to the plate NOW (as they should have 4-5 years ago, but abdicated their power to POTUS , then fine, get more involved in port/coastal security, and other 911-related issues. They gave him a blank check in 2001 & 2002... what's he supposed to think?

[Don Corleone]

Well, at the risk of being called stupid and a racist again, let me begin by saying I understand the concern on the part of some people (Soly, Prole et. al) with regards to this sale.

However, I really think we're getting all worked up over something that's all sizzle and no steak. Terminal operators do not control security, the Coast Guard (while it's still in the water) and the US Customs Service (once it's out) do. There's federal marshalls at each and every one of the terminals. As it turns out, in the Port of Newark, there are 6 terminals. 2 are owned by Chinese companies, 2 by American, one by a Danish company outright and one is co-owned by a Danish company and the British company that just got sold to the company in UAE.

What troubles me far more is not so much security as economic concerns. I know this makes me a touch protectionist, but I'm not, as I'm not advocating using legal means to block the transaction. But what's up in America that over 50% of our ports on the East Coast, 65% of our Gulf Coat ports and 90% of our West Coast ports are run better by foreign companies than by our own.

I'm not so much calling for a legal means to wrangle ourselves out of this deal as I am for a wakeup to my fellow citizens that if we want to continue to sit on our fat asses and let the rest of the world buy up all our assests, we're going to watch our wealth and standard of living evaporate in less than 1 generation. Nice future we're leaving our kids, indentured servitude to the rest of the world. Sheesh :no:

[Xiahou]

However, I really think we're getting all worked up over something that's all sizzle and no steak. Terminal operators do not control security, the Coast Guard (while it's still in the water) and the US Customs Service (once it's out) do. There's federal marshalls at each and every one of the terminals. As it turns out, in the Port of Newark, there are 6 terminals. 2 are owned by Chinese companies, 2 by American, one by a Danish company outright and one is co-owned by a Danish company and the British company that just got sold to the company in UAE.As you've shown here, there is alot of misinformation being put out by the press and, yes, *gasp* our politicians. News stories would have you believe that DP World would have total, absolute control over these ports- this is clearly not the case. Of course, if they really laid out all the facts, this would be a total non-story, so we cant expect the media to let that happen...

Another thing that cheeses me about this is how our politicians are whining about how we need more time to investigate. This deal has been in the works for months and none of them had anything to say about it until the story got out in the media. Now Frist is going to act, out of concern for our security- gimme a break. :dizzy2:

As to you economic concerns, Don, I wouldnt sweat it too much. As long as our ports are still bustling, it doesnt much matter who is operating the docks. We still have a strong economy if we can afford to import so much junk and are exporting manufactured goods. :bow:

What a shining example of lazy, sensationalist journalism this has been. :no:

[drone]

There is something fishy about all of this. If this truly was a security issue, there would have been a buildup to this, not just the sudden uproar we got yesterday. There has got to be some reason why A) Congress is raising such a ruckus all of the sudden, and B) why Bush is so adamant to get the deal through. There is a large amount of money at stake here, I wonder how much of it is slated for "campaign funds". :inquisitive:

Off-topic, but I think Bush believes vetoes are like timeouts, he only gets 3 per term and he doesn't want to use them unless absolutely necessary. :bounce:

[Papewaio]

Off-topic, but I think Bush believes vetoes are like timeouts, he only gets 3 per term and he doesn't want to use them unless absolutely necessary. :bounce:

There may not be a maximum number of vetoes... but I can see any President being gun shy of using a veto.

It is still a popularity contest once the pollies get elected. Stomp around and burn up all your credibility with the very people you need to get through your pet projects and might find it harder and harder to get the leverage you need to gain ground.

A President who rides roughshod will find out pretty quick how much of his policies get slowed down, diluted if not outright wiped out.

What is the historical maximum number of vetoes per annum for a President?

[Reenk Roink]

There may not be a maximum number of vetoes... but I can see any President being gun shy of using a veto.

It is still a popularity contest once the pollies get elected. Stomp around and burn up all your credibility with the very people you need to get through your pet projects and might find it harder and harder to get the leverage you need to gain ground.

A President who rides roughshod will find out pretty quick how much of his policies get slowed down, diluted if not outright wiped out.

What is the historical maximum number of vetoes per annum for a President?

I don't know of any limit, or if there is one, how many, but Johnson vetoed a hell of a lot of things, and a lot of them got overturned...

EDIT: That's Andrew...

[drone]

There is no limit, but I would think that Bush, in his lame-duck term, would have at least vetoed something already, just to see what it's like. He won't hold public office ever again after 2008, so what does he have to lose?

I wonder if I should start taking bets on his end-of-term pardons. Abrahmoff - 2 to 1. ~D

Anyhoo, :focus:

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I don't think it'll matter much anyway. We check maybe 5% of the cargo containers that go through those ports anyway. Not going to make a huge difference.

It is only by the grace of God that we haven't been hit again. I have a hard time giving Bush all the credit for that. :juggle2:

[Xiahou]

Here's a few more tidbits I came across...

The Chief Operating Officer for DP World? Edward Bilkey- look up 'rich old white guy' in the dictionary and you'd probably see his picture. Clearly a terrorist threat.

Next, according to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in the Pentagon- DP World is already used to service Navy warships overseas. Again, this really sounds like a big security concern... not. :rolleyes:

I really think that way the media and certain politicians are handling this story is shameful. Here's a gem of a quote from a letter to Bush from NC Rep. Sue Myrick (R):

"In regards to selling American ports to United Arab Emirates, not just NO-but HELL NO!"
Honestly, could anyone be any more ignorant of the issue than to think it's about "selling" American ports. It's unsettling that people like that are our leaders. :no:

[solypsist]

Wait, stop the presses. You mean they're saying one thing but doing another? Wow. When did Washington become all about politics?

[Xiahou]

Wait, stop the presses. You mean they're saying one thing but doing another? Wow. When did Washington become all about politics?
I dont know man.... I dont know.... :no:

:laugh4:

[Samurai Waki]

I don't care. The Company that wants to buy the ports like any major corporation has it's bankroll monitered by the WTO. Not only that, the Ports are still under US Costums Agency, and the Coast Guard. The only thing the executives of these corporations want to do is make money, not fund an insane ideology... It would be noticed pretty quick if one of the Executive Officers finances were suddenly disappearing. And their labour pool, could potentially be funding organizations such as AQ, but theres really nothing you can do about it, theres labourers in the US that could potentially privately fund organizations like AQ.

[Xiahou]

I don't care. The Company that wants to buy the ports like any major corporation has it's bankroll monitered by the WTOGah! They're not buying the ports!:wall:

Other than that, you make good points though. :wink:

[Major Robert Dump]

:laugh4: its not sensationalist journalism to report what elected officials are saying and doing, it's news. This issue did not surface a few days ago, only the reporting of it

Port security is dubious already. Air Marshalls don't make me feel any safer, considering the hiring standards were relaxed after 9/11.

But what do I know? China owns the Panama Canal, so I guess I don't care anymore.

[KukriKhan]

There may not be a maximum number of vetoes... but I can see any President being gun shy of using a veto...


...What is the historical maximum number of vetoes per annum for a President?

Looks like Grover Cleveland is the 'king of the veto':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._presidential_vetoes

[Xiahou]

I knew as soon as you guys saw the words Democrats and Hilary you would immediately dismiss it.

But for the record, the entire issue was brought to light by 5 Republicans, who were ignored by the white house, but the democrats actually ended up being the first ones to threatenIt's stupid no matter who is driving this issue. :shrug:


:laugh4: its not sensationalist journalism to report what elected officials are saying and doing, it's news.Good point. Now if they'd just start actually reporting the facts, then maybe we'd get somewhere. :idea2:

Honestly, the US Navy uses DP World to service their own ships....

[Lemur]

Interesting detail: (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5640688,00.html)


The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.

[edit]

And a little more stuff to make us all uncomfortable: (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/051205/5terror.b1.htm)

From Egypt to Afghanistan, when terrorists and gangsters need a place to meet, to relax, maybe to invest, they head to Dubai, a bustling city-state on the Persian Gulf. The Middle East's unquestioned financial capital, Dubai is the showcase of the United Arab Emirates, an oil-rich federation of sheikdoms. Forty years ago, Dubai was a backwater; today, it hosts dozens of banks and one of the world's busiest ports; its free-trade zones are crammed with thousands of companies. Construction is everywhere--skyscrapers, malls, hotels, and, soon, the world's tallest building.

But Dubai also serves as the region's criminal crossroads, a hub for smuggling, money laundering, and underground banking. There are Russian and Indian mobsters, Iranian arms traffickers, and Arab jihadists. Funds for the 9/11 hijackers and African embassy bombers were transferred through the city. It was the heart of Pakistani scientist A. Q. Khan's black market in nuclear technology and other proliferation cases. Half of all applications to buy U.S. military equipment from Dubai are from bogus front companies, officials say. "Iran," adds one U.S. official, "is building a bomb through Dubai." Last year, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents thwarted the shipment of 3,000 U.S. military night-vision goggles by an Iranian pair based in Dubai. Moving goods undetected is not hard. Dhows--rickety wooden boats that have plowed the Arabian Sea for centuries--move along the city center, uninspected, down the aptly named Smuggler's Creek.

U.A.E. rulers have taken terrorism seriously since 9/11, but Washington has a half-dozen extradition requests that they refuse to honor. The list includes people accused of rape, murder, and arms trafficking, and the last fugitive of the BCCI banking scandal. The country has put money laundering controls on the books but has made few cases. Interior Minister Sheik Saif bin Zayed Al Nahyan told U.S. News the U.A.E. has made great strides in cracking down, but he insists that the real problems lie elsewhere. "We are a neutral country, like Switzerland," he says. "Give us the evidence, and we will do something about it. Don't blame others." Not everyone agrees. "All roads lead to Dubai," says former treasury agent John Cassara, author of Hide and Seek, a forthcoming book on terrorism finance. Cassara tried explaining U.S. concerns about Dubai to a local businessman but got only a puzzled look: "Mr. John, money laundering? But that's what we do."

[rory_20_uk]

Call me paranoid:

Small, weak country: check.
Based in Middle East: check
Oil present: check
List of crimes outstanding: check

When's the invasion?

~:smoking:

[Xiahou]

Call me paranoid:You're paranoid. :bow:

[Proletariat]

I've backed off the ledge on this quite a bit after all your responses and listening to NPR the other day go into detail on how port security is run. Plus, I've never considered Baltimore part of the US, anyhow.

It's still pretty stupid having another state-run company running the show over here, but if there isn't a US company up to the task we deserve it. Not to mention how this will over-cloud the real issue of how lax our ports still are.

[Bartix]

Dubai people can not be worse, maybe? :inquisitive: I have seen motion pictures, so i know harbors of US are controlled by ethnical based criminals.:laugh4: Some times you are lucky and get unpleasant trade union types.:laugh4:

One difference: Normal mobs are "smart" parasitic creature - want to not kill host organism. Terrorist infiltrating type is different.

[Devastatin Dave]

Funny how the same people "outraged" by this (not you Prol, more directed to politicians in general) are the same people that get "outraged" about racial profiling at airports.
I really don't have a problem with this since we have the Chinese running companies in out ports as well as other less than desirable countries in business within. The global economy is just that, global. The security concerns are justified but security is not handled by the companies in the ports.

[Major Robert Dump]

But won't allowing a state run business onto our shores corrupt us with the Taint of socialism????



:laugh4: :laugh4: I said TAINT

[Goofball]

Funny how the same people "outraged" by this (not you Prol, more directed to politicians in general) are the same people that get "outraged" about racial profiling at airports.

AAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!

I hate it when Dave actually has a valid point!

:wall:


But won't allowing a state run business onto our shores corrupt us with the Taint of socialism????



I said TAINT

And then MRD trumps me. I have been trying to find a legitimate way to use the word taint in the Backroom for over 3000 posts now, and I get beaten to the punch.

Oh well. Taint my day I guess...

[Xiahou]

Oh well. Taint my day I guess...Boooo! Hissss!~;p

So, apparently, this deal has been delayed for a few weeks now. I think it's unfortunate, as it's making us look like a bunch of xenophobic protectionists to foreign investors.

And this issue continues to be driven by fear mongering and misinformation rather than fact. Just today good ole Hillary said (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--hillaryclinton0224feb24,0,7083836.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork) the following:

"We cannot cede sovereignty over critical infrastructure like our ports. This is a job that America has to do," Clinton told about 600 people at a breakfast sponsored by the Miami Beach Chamber of Commerce.Now, I think Hillary is alot of things- but I didnt think 'moron' was one of them. Ceding sovereignty of our ports? She can't honestly be so dumb as to really think that's what's being proposed... yet she still makes reckless statements like that so she can score political points with unions and attempt to make herself look hawkish on defense. The reactions on both sides of the Congress on this issue have just been pathetic.:no:

[Devastatin Dave]

My taint is itchy!!!:wall: :sweatdrop:

[rory_20_uk]

In Miami Hillary is likely to be either addressing investors of the ports or people jittery that they might be threatened next by the ruling, and so they want to hear a good strong statement why their own bias is correct, and damn the facts.

To think that this might be the runner for the next President - a vote grabbing sensationalist non-entity is not an appealing thought.

~:smoking:

[KukriKhan]

So the DP-P&O deal is 6.8 Billion USD to operate 6 ports.

If the American people want the government to operate all US seaports, no problem.

Eminent domain. 361 seaports x $1Bn apiece (rounding down), federalize the stevedore labour force ala the TSA & make another gov't agency to run the operation. Total cost, first year... approaching half a trillion dollars, by Kukri reckoning (your mileage may vary). Add on 'examine every item in every container' costs, as needed.

Or we could just march in the National Guard and 'nationalize' them - wait the Guard is busy. OK, mobilize the IRR (Individual Ready Reserve - military retirees, basically) to do that - those guys are on the federal nickle, make them earn that retired pay. I'm sure ports can accomodate their walkers and wheelchairs. Any of you older guys remember 1970 when the Post Office went on strike & the Nat'l Guard tried to run it for a month? Ha!

Rather than threatening a veto, I'd just tell those MC's & Senators that, if I were GeeDubya. But hey, he never listens to me. :)

[Major Robert Dump]

Deals like this that raise national security questions are required by law to have a 45 day review, including review by Congress. This obviously was not done. It will be now, and Congressx has backed down from their threats of making a special bill to stop it.

Just let them review it, let it run its course, good or bad. The manner in which the White House brokered this is what caused the uproar, and its the PResidents own fault. You don't make some midnight deal like this and expect folks to not make a stink about it when the news breaks at the last minute, and the only reason it breaks is because someone on their toes noticed it, not because the info was passed freely to the public.

[Xiahou]

Deals like this that raise national security questions are required by law to have a 45 day review, including review by Congress. This obviously was not done. It will be now, and Congressx has backed down from their threats of making a special bill to stop it.I dont believe that's the case- I thought the 45day review was optional. Any idea what law that is?


Just let them review it, let it run its course, good or bad. The manner in which the White House brokered this is what caused the uproar, and its the PResidents own fault. You don't make some midnight deal like this and expect folks to not make a stink about it when the news breaks at the last minute, and the only reason it breaks is because someone on their toes noticed it, not because the info was passed freely to the public.
Actually, I heard merger talks made the WSJ back as far as October.... I'd say Congress was asleep at the switch (as usual) rather than on their toes. They always scream the loudest about not being informed, yet they have dozens of oversight and investigative committees- I'd be interested to know what they're doing. The president, apparently, didn't even know about the deal because the issue didnt make it that far up the totem pole and was decided at lower levels.
Which, again, is fine by me- we don't need politicians trying to use these business deals to score political points. We're supposed to have a free market and you dont get that with meddling politicians pandering to unions or protectionists.

[Major Robert Dump]

Amendments. Section 837(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, called the "Byrd Amendment," amended Section 721 of the Defense Production Act (the "Exon-Florio provision"). It requires an investigation in cases where:

o the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government; and

o the acquisition "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."


i think the voluntary review everyone is thinking about is the additional one CFIUS conducted if a federal agency raises security questions about the deal, WhICH DHS apparently did last year.

to be hoNesT, coNgress is jUst pIssed about beiNg lefT oUt of the process

they play ploitics and try to score points with every other form of business deals this is no different

god my keyboard sucks