Fred Jones Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 GOP Governors Threaten to Block Port Deal Administration Grants Arab Company Permission to Run U.S. Ports By DEVLIN BARRETT, AP http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060218210909990001&ncid=NWS00010000000001 WASHINGTON (Feb. 21) - Two Republican governors are threatening legal action to block an Arab company from taking over operations in major U.S. ports and some GOP lawmakers say the deal should be closely examined. In the uneasy climate after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration decision to allow the transaction is threatening to develop a major political headache for the White House. New York Gov. George Pataki and Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich on Monday voiced doubts about the acquisition of a British company that has been running six U.S. ports by Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates. Rest at above link. So, UAE gets money from the sale of oil which gives them lots of capital to purchase things like Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. Nice way to get control of our ports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 From the article "Critics have noted that some of the 9/11 hijackers used the UAE as an operational and financial base. In addition, they contend the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist. The Bush administration got support Monday from former President Carter, a Democrat and frequent critic of the administration." Well, we have a thread going on right now about Carter being the worst President in history and the current administration is getting support from this very same president. If a Democratic President did this they would hang him out to dry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I disagree. While this issue is a great talking point (for both sides). The reality of it isnt that big of a deal. The US would still control the security at the ports. And it's a COMPANY based in UAE (not the Govt of the UAE) that would be running operations. And as such, that company is just as likely to employ potential terrorsits as the British Company that has been running the ports for the last 6 years. This is a non issue. Besides, have you seen the people checking your bags at Dulles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinDan0557 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I disagree.While this issue is a great talking point (for both sides). The reality of it isnt that big of a deal. The US would still control the security at the ports. And it's a COMPANY based in UAE (not the Govt of the UAE) that would be running operations. And as such, that company is just as likely to employ potential terrorsits as the British Company that has been running the ports for the last 6 years. This is a non issue. Besides, have you seen the people checking your bags at Dulles? http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000101&sid=apvLCRK73Efw&refer=japan This company is owned by the UAE government. The UAE is a drug transshipment point for traffickers given its proximity to Southwest Asian drug producing countries; the UAE's position as a major financial center makes it vulnerable to money laundering... http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ae.html This should not be a partisan issue. This sale is bad for America. The UAE should not be allowed to control our ports. This is ludicrous, wake up folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief skin Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 This is just another mistake in a long list of bungles by the administration, yeah we are a helluva lot safer then we were on 911. Unbelievable it would be interesting to know what the 911 commission thinks of this new hair brained scheme threat to Natl security? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I thought Liberals opposed racial profiling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinDan0557 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I thought Liberals opposed racial profiling? This is should not be a partisan issue, but a common sense security issue. Didn't I just read a post yesterday about conservatives/republicans worried about Muslims taking over western civilization? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 No, it should be a practical issue. The talking points spewed about this boils down to fear of Muslims. I believe in free trade more than I believe that every Muslim is a terrorist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinstzar Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I disagree.While this issue is a great talking point (for both sides). The reality of it isnt that big of a deal. The US would still control the security at the ports. And it's a COMPANY based in UAE (not the Govt of the UAE) that would be running operations. And as such, that company is just as likely to employ potential terrorsits as the British Company that has been running the ports for the last 6 years. This is a non issue. Besides, have you seen the people checking your bags at Dulles? Whoa whoa whao, a non issue? A company that controls the security measures of our Ports would be decisive in creating and maintaining the infrastructure. You don't see the can of worms this could open up? Let's say a terrorist in Syria wants to smuggle material into the US to support a sleeper cell already in place. This terrorist grew up with a guy who is now a top ranking official with the company in charge of controling our ports. He goes to this man and convinces him that the Jihad needs him. The official then gives him access to sensitive information and he is able to smuggle dangerous material into the Baltimore Harbor. Now this is far fetched I grant you but is it so far fetched that it couldn't happen? When the terrorist carried out the plot of 9/11 they changed the face of the world. They killed people under the justification that the Muslim world was done many injustices. When they did that they tainted the Muslim world. Their actions have dammed the decent in the Muslim world. There is now really only one way to harm the US on a drastic level and that is to invade or compromise our seaports. Letting any outside interest control the security of our ports is ludacris. Not only should our ports be secured domestically it should be done directly by the DHLS. No contractors, no bidding just Border Patrol, INS, ATF, DEA, DOC. Securing the safety of Americans is much more important that Oil, fuel, exports, imports. This would present a clear and present threat to our security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Whoa whoa whao, a non issue? A company that controls the security measures of our Ports would be decisive in creating and maintaining the infrastructure. You don't see the can of worms this could open up? Let's say a terrorist in Syria wants to smuggle material into the US to support a sleeper cell already in place. This terrorist grew up with a guy who is now a top ranking official with the company in charge of controling our ports. He goes to this man and convinces him that the Jihad needs him. The official then gives him access to sensitive information and he is able to smuggle dangerous material into the Baltimore Harbor. Now this is far fetched I grant you but is it so far fetched that it couldn't happen? When the terrorist carried out the plot of 9/11 they changed the face of the world. They killed people under the justification that the Muslim world was done many injustices. When they did that they tainted the Muslim world. Their actions have dammed the decent in the Muslim world. There is now really only one way to harm the US on a drastic level and that is to invade or compromise our seaports. Letting any outside interest control the security of our ports is ludacris. Not only should our ports be secured domestically it should be done directly by the DHLS. No contractors, no bidding just Border Patrol, INS, ATF, DEA, DOC. Securing the safety of Americans is much more important that Oil, fuel, exports, imports. This would present a clear and present threat to our security. No-one had a problem when it was a British Company. What if your scenario had happened but it was a Brit and not a Syrian? Furthermore, you're buying the spin/talking points. The UEA Company will NOT control the security. They would control operations. A very big difference. There are exactly ZERO American Companies that do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinDan0557 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 No, it should be a practical issue.The talking points spewed about this boils down to fear of Muslims. I believe in free trade more than I believe that every Muslim is a terrorist. The information I posted is factual. Deal with it, don't deny it. I don't believe every Muslim is necessarily a terrorist either, particuarly ones that reside in this country. I could care less about free trade if it degrades our security. Free trade is overrated anyway---but thats another argument. So if Osama wants to buy shares in GE or Northrup Grummand---then you're OK with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinstzar Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 No-one had a problem when it was a British Company. What if your scenario had happened but it was a Brit and not a Syrian? Admitting my ignorance, I didn't know it was a brittish company. I would have had a huge problem with that as well. My stance is that it shouldn't be farmed out at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Air Force Cane Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 the WH needs to step up and block this sale. allowing the Arab Emirates to control our ports?!! We might as well let Saudi Arabia run our airport screening... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Admitting my ignorance, I didn't know it was a brittish company. I would have had a huge problem with that as well. My stance is that it shouldn't be farmed out at all. See above. It HAS to be farmed out. There are no American Firms that do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinstzar Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 No-one had a problem when it was a British Company. What if your scenario had happened but it was a Brit and not a Syrian?Furthermore, you're buying the spin/talking points. The UEA Company will NOT control the security. They would control operations. A very big difference. There are exactly ZERO American Companies that do this. That is just false. It is called the Coast Guard and Port Authorities. I work for a large consulting firm and I have quite a bit of consulting experience. If the bid is high enough any Consulting Firm will figure out a way to do it. If you dangle enough money in front of Accenture, SAIC, Northrup Grumman, Lockhead Martin, they will find away to implement a system for you. But again I don't believe this should be privatized, it is much like the age old argument of privatizing prisons. Some things must be maintained by the Government, since Sept 11 there are some new things on this list. Port Security is one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 That is just false. It is called the Coast Guard and Port Authorities. I work for a large consulting firm and I have quite a bit of consulting experience. If the bid is high enough any Consulting Firm will figure out a way to do it. If you dangle enough money in front of Accenture, SAIC, Northrup Grumman, Lockhead Martin, they will find away to implement a system for you. But again I don't believe this should be privatized, it is much like the age old argument of privatizing prisons. Some things must be maintained by the Government, since Sept 11 there are some new things on this list. Port Security is one of them. Maybe Im not being clear enough. THE US WILL STILL CONTROL PORT SECURITY THROUGH THE DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. The issue here is about Operations. IE- controlling the Tugs, the channels, the loading docks procedures. ALL SECURITY WILL STILL BE RUN BY THE US GOVT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinDan0557 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Maybe Im not being clear enough.THE US WILL STILL CONTROL PORT SECURITY THROUGH THE DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. The issue here is about Operations. IE- controlling the Tugs, the channels, the loading docks procedures. ALL SECURITY WILL STILL BE RUN BY THE US GOVT. Only 5% of our containers are inspected. So lets add more fuel to the fire by allowing the UAE to control which ships go where, whats on the manifest, or the country of origin (some of that operations type stuff you keep talking about)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinstzar Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Maybe Im not being clear enough.THE US WILL STILL CONTROL PORT SECURITY THROUGH THE DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. The issue here is about Operations. IE- controlling the Tugs, the channels, the loading docks procedures. ALL SECURITY WILL STILL BE RUN BY THE US GOVT. In order to control operations you must be privy to security detail. There would have to be cooperation between the two parties. This leaves room for error. We left room for error with our airport security efforts five years ago and we got burned. Having a proposed relationship such as this allows for parties to get in bed with each other and breaches to be made. Even if a company run out of the UAE does control only operations they are still closer than they need to be. One of the main reasons we pay taxes is so that our government can supply us with piece of mind regarding our safety. They would be failling miserably if this accord was allowed to occur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Only 5% of our containers are inspected. So lets add more fuel to the fire by allowing the UAE to control which ships go where, whats on the manifest, or the country of origin (some of that operations type stuff you keep talking about)? We've been allowing a British Company to do it for years. What's the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 In order to control operations you must be privy to security detail. There would have to be cooperation between the two parties. This leaves room for error. We left room for error with our airport security efforts five years ago and we got burned. Having a proposed relationship such as this allows for parties to get in bed with each other and breaches to be made. Even if a company run out of the UAE does control only operations they are still closer than they need to be. One of the main reasons we pay taxes is so that our government can supply us with piece of mind regarding our safety. They would be failling miserably if this accord was allowed to occur. Not necessarily. Security would not be at the direction of this firm. As it has not been at the direction of the British firm. This just reeks of Xenophobia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinDan0557 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 We've been allowing a British Company to do it for years.What's the difference? The Brits are our natural allies, have been since WWI. We trade national security, military, and intelligence information with the Brits. We share more with the Brits than any other country. They are our natural allies---I don't have a problem with the Brits controlling the "operations" of our ports. Further, 2 of the 19 9/11 hijackers didn't come from Britain, they came from the UAE, the government of which owns the controversial company. The UAE is a favored drug, arms, and money laudering route of terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief skin Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Not a liberal, not a conservative, a well informed realist is what I am. We should not get so upset over this because it is so brutally obvious that this scheme is DEAD WRONG. The American people see this as putting the wolf in charge of the hen house. Public opinion is flat out against it and the cowards in Congress know it, they also know all too well that November is 9 months away and this hair brained scheme will only fuel the throw the bums out sentiment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Richard Reid (shoe bomber) came from England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinstzar Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Not necessarily. Security would not be at the direction of this firm. As it has not been at the direction of the British firm.This just reeks of Xenophobia. That couldn't be further from the truth. I think Xena is fine warrior princess and that has nothing to do with US Ports. All jokes aside, I have no fear of Muslims, I have many Muslim friends and co workers. I have much respect for every religion. I just don't feel as safe today as I used to. I want to have the piece of mind that our US ports are safe. I have read the thoughts of my home states governor and if he isn't comfortable with this then neither am I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 That couldn't be further from the truth. I think Xena is fine warrior princess and that has nothing to do with US Ports. All jokes aside, I have no fear of Muslims, I have many Muslim friends and co workers. I have much respect for every religion. I just don't feel as safe today as I used to. I want to have the piece of mind that our US ports are safe. I have read the thoughts of my home states governor and if he isn't comfortable with this then neither am I. That's just politics. Safety and Security will be no different that it is currently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.