(Originally posted 10:19 PM ET 2/20/06 - Bumped up for more comment and additional articles of reference - scroll down for updates)
There’s lots of rumbling going on in conservative AND liberal circles over the Bush-admin approved deal that would turn over control of port operations in six US ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates. Story via FoxNews:
WASHINGTON — House Speaker Dennis Hastert and newly minted House Majority Leader John Boehner will soon be “flexing muscle” against the Bush administration-approved transaction that permits shifting control of port operations in six U.S. ports from a British company to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates.
“We are very concerned about it and that it could threaten our national security,” one senior House Republican leadership aide told FOX News late Monday. Another senior aide said: “Most indications point to leadership flexing muscle against this transaction.”
On Monday, New York Rep. Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said he was urging President Bush to delay approval of the deal. King also said he saw many reasons to cancel it altogether.
“I’m strongly urging the president to intervene to stop this, to freeze it, to put it on hold,” King said. “This contract should not be allowed to go forward until there is a full and complete investigation. And there has not been a full investigation of this company nor of its roots in the United Arab Emirates.”
King said UAE-owned Dubai Ports World won approval without thorough administration vetting.
“There have been allegations of weapons parts going through that port to Iran,” King said of that country’s own territory. “There’s been allegations of corruption about that port. None of these have ever been investigated by our government.”
King’s comments were cleared by House GOP leaders and, according to sources, reflect the view of the House Republican Conference at large. Republicans are increasingly concerned at the political impact of the port story. They fear it could leave them vulnerable to Democratic criticism and at least partially undermine their political advantage on national security.
Late Monday, Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., called on the president to intervene immediately.
“We have 10 days to stop this transaction, a transaction that we think is not in the national security of the united states, and that needs to be stopped by the president,” Menendez said.
Under federal law, the president has until March 2 to overrule approval granted by the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States for DP World to purchase the London-basedPeninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation, which has been running the commercial operations at ports in New York, New Jersey, New Orleans, Baltimore, Philadelphia and Miami.
The multi-agency task force headed by Treasury Secretary John Snow and comprised of members of the departments of State, Justice, Commerce, Defense and Homeland Security reviewed the transaction and said it posed no national security threat.
Here’s the NYT’s write-up on the UAE port deal.
Michelle Malkin has done extensive blogging on this issue, as have many other bloggers - both on the right and left hand side of the aisle.
I share many of the same concerns as others who are blogging about this. File this under “what in the he** was the administration thinking?” I’ve yet to see a convincing argument that this is a “good deal” that we shouldn’t have to worry about.
What do you think?
Tue PM Update: On the other side of the coin, there are some who are essentially saying ‘calm down’:
The claim that six U.S. port facilities are being “sold” to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates may be grist to the election-year mill for politicians from both parties, but the resulting furor may obscure the challenges of port security. The transaction in question is the $6.8 billion acquisition by Dubai Ports World of the British P&O shipping company, to become the world’s third largest port-operator. Among P&O’s numerous worldwide operations are contracts to operate port facilities in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. The transaction was approved by the Bush administration after a routine evaluation by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, an inter-agency body that assesses the security implications of foreign acquisitions of major U.S. infrastructure assets. U.S. officials say that both P&O and Dubai Ports World have solid security records.
Still, the deal has been opposed by a Miami based port operator, Continental Stevedoring & Terminals Inc., which has gone to court to challenge the measure on security grounds. And politicians from both parties have amplified that complaint, despite the assurances by the Bush administration that the company’s record checks out, and that the UAE is an ally in good standing in the war on terror.
New York Republican Congressman Peter King has insisted the administration revisit its approval of the transfer of control of U.S. ports to “a company coming out of a country where al Qaeda has such a strong presence,” and which could be easily infiltrated by the terrorist network. Democratic Senators Hillary Clinton of New York and Bob Menendez of New Jersey plan to hold hearings on the issue next week, and are seeking legislation banning companies controlled by foreign governments from buying U.S. port facilities. Menendez alleged that the UAE has a “serious and dubious history… as a transit point for terrorism.” And in response to Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff’s insistence that the administration made a rigorous check — without disclosing details — of the security implications of the deal, California Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer said “It’s ridiculous to say you’re taking secret steps to make sure that it’s okay for a nation that has ties to 9/11 to take over part of our port operations.”
But to call the United Arab Emirates a country “tied to 9/11″ by virtue of the fact that one of the hijackers was born there and others transited through it is akin to attaching the same label to Britain (where shoe-bomber Richard Reid was born) or Germany (where a number of the 9/11 conspirators were based for a time). Dubai’s port has a reputation for being one of the best run in the Middle East, says Stephen Flynn, a maritime security expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. And Dubai Ports World, which is a relatively new venture launched by the government of Dubai in 1999, has a number of Americans well known in the shipping industry in its senior leadership. It operates port facilities from Australia through China, Korea and Malaysia to India, Germany and Venezuela. (The acquisition of P&O would give them control over container shipping ports in Vancouver, Buenos Aires and a number of locations in Britain, France and a number of Asian countries.) “It’s not exactly a shadow organization for al-Qaeda,” says Flynn. Dubai, in fact, was one of the first Middle Eastern countries to join the U.S. Container Security Initiative, which places U.S. customs agents in overseas ports to begin the screening process from a U.S.-bound cargo’s point of departure.
Dubai Ports World has been taken by surprise over the furor, and is reportedly sending its Chief Operating Officer, the widely respected American shipping executive Edward “Ted” H. Bilkey to Washington for talks. Indeed, the Bush administration needn’t wait for Bilkey to arrive; it could get a good assessment of the workings of Dubai Ports World from its own current nominee for the post of U.S. Maritime Administrator — Dave Sanborn, previously a top executive at Dubai Ports World.
In the talk-show furor over the transfer of P&O to Dubai Ports World, there has been little reference to the mechanics of port management in the U.S. Over 80 percent of the terminals in the Port of Los Angeles, for example — the biggest in the U.S. — are run by foreign-owned companies. U.S. ports are owned by State authorities, and the workers who actually offload the ships that dock there are the same unionized Americans who belong to the International Longshoremen’s Association regardless of which company hires them. Dubai Ports will not “own” the U.S. facilities, but will inherit the P&O’s contracts to run them, with no changes in the dockside personnel or the U.S. government security operations that currently apply to them.
See also: AJ Strata’s posts here and here, Macsmind (see also here)
Joe Gandelman has a link roundup of blogger reax.
| Email This Post | Print This |
Wow!
This company did not even exist in 1998 according to their website. Also this company is no stranger to the President.
http://www.dpiterminals.com/fullnews.asp?NewsID=39
I wonder who else is invested in the new company. Perhaps a certain private equity fund?
I find it ironic that we are unable to control our borders yet we want to hand over control of six major ports to an Arab company.
Comment by GBA @ 2/21/2006 - 12:18 am
Feelings? or thoughts…..
Comment by forest hunter @ 2/21/2006 - 12:35 am
for the moment I am undecided but leaning against it.
It is not like we don’t already have a heavy foreign presence, but the amount of this one is kind of concerning.
What also concerns me though is that this could be knee jerk xenophobia. So I want to know more, and like I really want to see someone say *why* it is a good thing.
It better be something more persuasive then cost.
Comment by Karl @ 2/21/2006 - 12:54 am
Karl,
Here! Here!
Comment by GBA @ 2/21/2006 - 12:59 am
Get Halliburton to buy LINK and everyone will be happy.
Comment by Ed "Comte" DeLoach @ 2/21/2006 - 1:23 am
I addressed this a bit in my blog and honestly, I feel that whoever thought this one up needs their head examined..
Comment by TexasFred @ 2/21/2006 - 1:51 am
Day after day we see event after event that drives home the point that commercial interests outweigh any other concern in this country. Does it not ring a bell somewhere that when a Federal Maritime Commissioner is a stockholder in the UAE corporation who was awarded the contract perhaps, just perhaps there is corruption involved. Do the FMC, Federal Trade Commission, and Department of Commerce ever have a conversation with Homeland Security or NSA? How many times do we have to learn the same lessons? We lost 3000 American lives because federal agencies had not learned how to “play nice” with each other now we are turning the Mullah loose in the cathouse by allowing a foreign company to control the operation of some of our most sensitive security risks. Why not just offer a package deal to the Chinese- we’ll swap our debt instruments for long term contracts to our technology research and development establishments and controlling equity in
strategic industries and majority seats on the NYSE and Federal Reserve Board and unrestricted Chinese imports to the USA so that balance of trade is no longer a concern but a complete trainwreck and then just to show what nice guys we are, we’ll train submarine crews, missile weapons control officers, throw in a few hundred tactical nukes and loan out enough B1 bombers to carry them. There may be other options for taking our country down the tubes but I can’t think of them right off hand. But, stockholders in US corporations will be in for a helluva ride up or at least until economic and military dominance converts to political dominance and we all learn to eat with chopsticks and get used to carrying our copy of the thoughts of Chairman Mao.
Early Marxists foretold that the fundamental human susceptibility to greed would destroy any society. Couldn’t have been more correct. As corporate CEO’s bank (offshore) their millions in bonuses and stock options each year and hourly workers are obliterated in mass year by year by incompetent management of major industries we have allowed an oligarchy to be created that has no interest in preserving the integrity of working people throughout this nation. We are disposable. Our government is like a mutant virus that survives only for its own survival- the protein mass that feeds it is only for consumption and elimination.
We have to change. We have to awaken the American voter’s social conscience and take care of each other because corporate America sure as hell won’t. Accept no platitudes from your legislators- demand accountability. Your vote is the ammunition of a democratic society- aim clearly.
Comment by Jerry Lowery @ 2/21/2006 - 1:55 am
Hey, if you can’t trust the UAE with our national security, who can you trust?
Comment by kevin @ 2/21/2006 - 2:19 am
Interestingly enough, according to “sitemeter”, someone in the U.A.E. accessed my blog…by tracking me from the link I posted here to Mohammed images. I guess there’ll be fatwas issued against both of us now, huh?
Comment by camojack @ 2/21/2006 - 4:02 am
I know nothing about the company that’s supposed to get this management contract, but I can’t imagine how it could be wise to sublet the management of any access route to this country to persons who owe it no allegiance…especially in times like these.
Comment by Francis W. Porretto @ 2/21/2006 - 5:32 am
I’m against this company running port security, solely on the grounds that American security is an American job. I had no idea a British firm was running our port security. I’m against that too. There are many things that can be farmed out to the lowest bidder. Security isn’t one of them.
Comment by blogagog @ 2/21/2006 - 6:13 am
Can you see me shakin’ my head? This seems like a no brainer to me. I know of no reasons why we would be farming out our work Stateside, when it’s Stateside! This sure as hell’s not a pair of shoes from Mexico or computers from Japan. Stateside work should be for Americans. Period! Naturally, their can and should be foreign assets working alongside. What! Did we run out of people all of a sudden.
Calling all googlers! How many ports are we in charge of?
This is right up there with having a designated peeing section in the pool for pete sake!
Comment by forest hunter @ 2/21/2006 - 7:02 am
One of the biggest holes in our national security, besides our porous borders with Mexico and Canada, are the container ports. With millions of containers entering this country through ports on every coast and fanning out all over this country it is next to impossible to check everyone of them. It has long been speculated that Islamic Terrorists could ship a dirty bomb in one of these containers into this country. We have been looking at technology to check these containers for radio active material and explosives but it would only take one container to get through. Dubai Ports World may be a fine company but are we willing to take a chance on a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, home of one of the 9/11 hijackers? Robert Menendez, Democratic Senator from New Jersey, hit the nail on the head: “No matter what steps the administration claims it has secretly taken, it is an unacceptable risk to turn control of our ports over to a foreign government, particularly one with a troubling history. We cannot depend on promises a foreign government has given the administration in secret to secure our ports.”
Comment by Jim M @ 2/21/2006 - 8:06 am
Guys, you gotta give me a break.. your Xenophobia is becomming too flagrant !
Comment by Mustapha @ 2/21/2006 - 9:02 am
Hey Mustapha call it what you want I would rather error on the side of caution than to have to bury more Americans. You are probably one of the politically correct that says we shouldn’t profile because it may offend people. Well let me break the news to you 19 of the 19 hijackers were Muslim and Al-Qaeda is made up of yyyooouuu guess it Muslims! Now a company owned by a country that’s population is once again Muslims that probably do not have Americans best interest (Security) at heart. And yes Americans should be a little hesitant to let a Muslim owned company run our ports when Muslims have chanted death to America over and over again. Hey I have an idea let’s let the Chinese run security for the White House and the Pentagon what do you think Mustapha?
Comment by Jim M @ 2/21/2006 - 9:55 am
It doesn’t go a long way toward making ME feel safer.
Don’t we have a company here in this country that we could trust for this job?
I’m gettin kinda tired of being sold down the proverbial river. This isn’t what I signed up for. In fact, I haven’t heard much of anything lately that I signed up for, like fiscal responsibility and respect American traditional values of freedom, justice, and respect for the law.
Comment by solitaire @ 2/21/2006 - 11:04 am
This Administration thinks it’s OK to spy on Americans, but will sell these ports… I smell a f***ing RAT. What’s even more amazing, is how Republicans just smile and bow and look up to this Administration… reminds me of the pictures and old news reels of Hitler. Something else thats troubling, is the Democrats are DOING NOTHING. Like I said… I smell a F***NG RAT!
Edited. Please read the rules, specifically as they pertain to cursing, before posting in the future. Thanks. –ST
Comment by Ohm @ 2/21/2006 - 11:09 am
Ohm, Surveille people in America talking to Al Qaida.
Comment by Baklava @ 2/21/2006 - 11:37 am
Ohm you have not read much on this subject have you? There are two Republican governors New York Gov. George Pataki and Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich that are against this. Not only these Governors but the House Leadership and the last time I checked they are Republicans and they are also against this. Why is it some of you liberals have to spout off with only partial information and then start with the Hitler, Nazi when talking about Conservatives? The spying on Americans is another subject!
Comment by Jim M @ 2/21/2006 - 11:48 am
As this is a new subject, I researched before I formed an opinion.
Here’s my take:
It is a little interesting that we are working to reform the Arab world - we’ve set up 2 Representative republic (democratic nations) - and we are working to establish relationships in this war on terror so that Muslim countries are working with us to fight the Islamofacists, and yet we can’t do business with UAE which is not Yemen but does have some concerns for us.
While that was said, I’d say that all of us have concerns and would probably if informed do business with UAE more frequently - JUST NOT with the loading and unloading of shipping containers at ports. Yes, it’ll be New York union guys doing the actual labor. Yes, the Coast Guard supplies security. But why does it have to be this deal? Why can’t we when establishing these relationships and allowing UAE ownership have some rules that it can’t be owning aircraft loading and unloading, ship loading and unloading, and anything else sensitive so soon after 9/11. We don’t really even have to have a reason in my opinion. We can just say to UAE that everyone is sensitive after 9/11. UAE, You understand don’t you??
Comment by Baklava @ 2/21/2006 - 11:51 am
Baklava,
These folks are not surveiling just international calls. Didn’t you watch the Interview of Gen. Miichael Handley or listen to the lengthy Q&A after?
And the leaks obviously came from within from someone who grew a conscience and is an obvious patriot.
Basically it’s like this if you recieved a suspect call from anyone on the watch list you will monitored until they eliminate you as a possible threat. That’s every call, email, smoke signal or whatever communication you make to anyone, anywhere and at anytime. I read the legal argument for the action and the President has been posesses the authority to eliminate or ignor the Fourth Amendment as he deems necessary to perform his duties of office.
I am not saying this not a valuable tool in protecting this country. But I think you need to research the origins of what Al-Quaeda really is. Let me give you a hint it started in Jordan and not by UBL.
Comment by GBA @ 2/21/2006 - 11:53 am
It is very interesting indeed how racist we are. This isn’t about security, it’s about Arabs oh yeah and about slamming Bush. It has been days since this story first came out and today is the first that I have heard anything about P&O, the British company that now runs these ports. So we have a bunch of Dems saying only Americans should run the ports, but where were they when P&O took over? This has been represented as the Bush administartion making a deal with UAE when in reality it is just another corporate buyout.
P&O is a good company, one that by the way I actually worked for some years ago (not in shipping but construction). They were a large multi industry conglomorate. They treated their employees well and there was no undue influence from Great Britian on running our businesses here. But I don’t think they should have been running our ports either.
Let’s all be honest! Most of us didn’t care until the guy buying P&O was an Arab. Instead we should all really think about this so called global economy and what we are losing.
Comment by Bob @ 2/21/2006 - 12:12 pm
GBA wrote, “These folks are not surveiling just international calls. Didn’t you watch the Interview of Gen. Miichael Handley or listen to the lengthy Q&A after?
Yep. And these were internation calls with Al Qaida.
GBA wrote, “And the leaks obviously came from within from someone who grew a conscience and is an obvious patriot.
And there is a LEGAL way to handle things if you grow a conceince. Going to the NY Times is NOT the legal way.
Also the president according to many including myself was acting within the law:
On July 14, 1994 President Clinton’s Deputy Attorney General and 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that “The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes… and that the president may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.” This “inherent authority” was used to search the home of CIA traitor Aldrich Ames without a warrant. “It is important to understand,” Gorelick continued, “that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities.”
Comment by Baklava @ 2/21/2006 - 12:18 pm
Baklava,
Do you think that 7 years experience is enough to effectively run and secure six major ports in the US?
My employees apprentice for 3 years until I let them work alone. And my business is squat in comaprison to this.
No body has even mentioned the longshoremen yet.
It’s important to point out the neither Iraq or Afghanistan have stabilized yet. And require military occupation to keep the peace.
So why not wait and see if our Arab world occupation experiment works before we hand over vital entry points to Arabs who in your own sentiment practice a religion that is danger to peace?
BTW the US Coast Guard does not inspect every ship. Far from it. Actually it’s less than 10%.
Perhaps next we’ll hand over San Fransiscos’ entry way to the Saudis, or the Libya?
Can you imagine if a nuclear, radioactive or chemical weapon made it up the San Joaquin Delta and detonated in the Port of Stockton?
Bob,
What are we losing if we re-contract to American for the operation of these ports?
What is wrong with putting each port out for fair bid?
You say you have an inside track. Why not let Americans bid?
Comment by GBA @ 2/21/2006 - 12:21 pm
Baklava,
You need to go back and read my post.
I never said the leaker did not break the law. But Whistleblower status to not protect NSA employees. So it would have been professional suicide for the leaker.
Also I said that I know the President DOES have the authority and that authority was strengthed by a vote of congress.
But you are sick if you think it’s only International calls. But in the end it doesn’t really matter. If you are not a bad guy then you’ll be fine. Nothing to worry about.
Comment by GBA @ 2/21/2006 - 12:27 pm
GBA, I’m not sure why you are arguing with me on this. I had a well reasoned set of words I believe…. But because you provided some funny statements I’d like to pick them apart….
GBW wrote, “Do you think that 7 years experience is enough to effectively run and secure six major ports in the US?
That’s like saying that my business has only been in operation for 2.5 years (which it has) and saying I only have 2.5 years of experience. I have 18 years of computer experience and anyone saying otherwise would be INACCURATE. Don’t construe these words of mine to be anything different on the UAE subject than what I posted earlier which was fine and reasonable.
GBW wrote, “It’s important to point out the neither Iraq or Afghanistan have stabilized yet. And require military occupation to keep the peace.
Japan and Germany took 7 and 10 years respectively. I don’t understand the reason for pointing this out. Are you saying that I was inaccurate? I wasn’t. And they will have their own country’s security someday. Even then we still “occupy” Germany and Japan. How is your agument GBA relevant to what I wrote?
GBA dangerously and irresponsibly put words in my mouth incorrectly by saying, “So why not wait and see if our Arab world occupation experiment works before we hand over vital entry points to Arabs who in your own sentiment practice a religion that is danger to peace?
Islamofacists are a percentage of Muslims. In my opinion, Muslims do not “practice a religion that is a danger to peace”.
There are peace verses in the Koran as well as kill the infidel type verses. There are plenty of Muslims who see that they must be able to coexist and are upset about these Islamafacists. One of them has been blogged about by ST and appears on Fox News. What is your intention? To alienate these people and then criticize people like Bush for alienating? If that is the case that would be irresponsible. Quite the pattern..
GBA wrote, “BTW the US Coast Guard does not inspect every ship. Far from it. Actually it’s less than 10%.
Nobody here including myself claimed otherwise.. There is a process though and every container goes through some level of scrutiny (yes some level is very vague). And yes, the point about physically searching every container is valid but why do you write things the way you write them?
In your response to Bob, I see you don’t understand the issue even though I’m on YOUR side as my earlier post should be clear on that. The issue is that this was a British company who had a LONG TERM contract who has been sold to UAE. It isn’t a new contract. Again. I’d be in favor of telling UAE no.
Comment by Baklava @ 2/21/2006 - 12:38 pm
I read your post GBA. You wrote, “And the leaks obviously came from within from someone who grew a conscience and is an obvious patriot.
To which I responded:
That is just adding my two cents and it never accused you of saying that it was handled legally.
—
GBA with an obvious PhD in psychology wrote, “But you are sick if you think it’s only International calls.
OK. Supply the EVIDENCE (which hasn’t been done by ANYONE) that these calls were not International. I did not read Gen. Michael Handley to be saying what you said he was saying. He did not supply evidence. He was simply responding to the questioner with what I thought were good responses.
Comment by Baklava @ 2/21/2006 - 12:43 pm
Baklava,
What is the legal way?
How do you address these concerns form within an environment of total secrecy and repression?
How does that individual avoid retaliation?
It all stems from calls that originate internationally. Gen. Handley was very carefule not to say that domestic call could and are not being tracked. But it doesn’t matter anyway whether it’s international or domestic. It is what it is. Do you believe that electronic communication is an essential liberty?
Comment by GBA @ 2/21/2006 - 12:57 pm
I read about the legal way and there are guidlines which I can’t remember. I believe it had to do with informing the Intelligence Committee in Congress but I could be wrong. Suffice to say, I can’t remember and the person did it improperly. “Growing a concience” is not a get out of jail free card. It may be that that conscience was just a disagreement on an interpretation of the law.
GBA asked, “ DO [I] believe that electronic communication is an essential liberty?
It falls under the first ammendment to me. Whether it’s electronic or vibrations from my voice box through the air to your ear. Communications with the enemy during a time of war is perfectly acceptable surveillance and one should expect that communication to be surveilled. I expect it and everyone else should. You cannot make people leave a crowded theater thus causing safety problems. Therefore you cannot electronically transmit a message to someone saying there is a bomb aboard such and such flight at this moment in time. With liberty comes responsibility and with responsibility there is accountability if you cross the line.
Comment by Baklava @ 2/21/2006 - 1:06 pm
Baklava,
Lets not for get that the majority of the Itelligence Committee was unaware of the program.
Electronic communication being an essential liberty we are in agreement on. But I feel that it’s important to note that we have been in a de facto state of war for the better part of the last 60 years.
Comment by GBA @ 2/21/2006 - 1:13 pm
We are not at war with France though. Surveillance of enemy communications does not mean communications with French people (who are not members of Al Qaida).
Sure we have been at war. But not with everyone.
So your note is noted and I helped others with perspective on that note.
Comment by Baklava @ 2/21/2006 - 1:16 pm
I am not for this deal right now. Not with 3 citizens with arabic names being indicted for attempting to “join the Holy War”. Ohio men indicted
What the left is avoiding acknowledging it is Wahabists who have declared a religious war on the US, Israel, Europe and anywhere else that doesn’t follow sharia and wahabism. It is a war, NOT A POLICE ACTION.
Comment by PCD @ 2/21/2006 - 1:23 pm
Comment by tommy in nyc @ 2/21/2006 - 1:52 pm
I expect vigilent surveillance to protect Americans AND I expect rigorous oversight to prevent abuses.
I don’t see anything at all wrong with that arrangement.
Comment by solitaire @ 2/21/2006 - 1:53 pm
Baklava,
What does the word “reasonable” mean to you?
This in no way suggesting that you are unreasonable. But intead this is the new criteria for electronic surveillance.
FISA requires “probable cause” and has serious penalties for misuse. That is why they don’t use it. Nobody wants to go to jail for acting on good faith in defense of the country.
How far can you stretch reason?
I highy doubt any one sits around at the NSA and says this call is from France so let it go. These poeple are using sophiticated voice and data software to monitor trunk lines. They are not diseminating these call by originating country. But rather by previously gathered intelligence and live data mining.
Comment by GBA @ 2/21/2006 - 1:54 pm
ST, Nice PM update
There is perspective to be had but I still stick to my original post’s feelings/thoughts.
There are so many people commenting that don’t even know what has happened…
Time said, “after a routine evaluation by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, an inter-agency body that assesses the security implications of foreign acquisitions of major U.S. infrastructure assets. U.S. officials say that both P&O and Dubai Ports World have solid security records.
My point was and still is:
We are all still really sensitive about this stuff after 9/11.
And to the EXTENT that Time talks about the other foreign owned parts of our infrastructure including LA Airport, it only shows how woeful of a job the press has been doing their duty. I applaud Time for finding out these facts and talking about them and in a “calm down” kind of way.
Me? I’m not a fear mongerer, and I don’t support some of the incorrect statements of fact on either side of this argument, I just think that all sensitive areas of our infrastructure should be handled with care in this new day in age. It’s fine to do business with the new Iraq, the new Afghanistan, UAE, etc, but not with the sensitive areas of our infrastructure (like Nuclear reactors, ports, airlines, etc).
Comment by Baklava @ 2/21/2006 - 1:55 pm
GBA got to the fundamental issue but missed the point, “FISA requires “probable cause” and has serious penalties for misuse. That is why they don’t use it. Nobody wants to go to jail for acting on good faith in defense of the country.
FISA does not trump the commander in chief’s ability to conduct a war during a time of war and in carrying out a war surveille the enemies communications. Sorry. FISA does not apply here. It even so in the statute that it does not apply to “foriegn” or “international” communications surveillance.
Do you understand that fundamental right of the president or not? Do you see the point or not?
Comment by Baklava @ 2/21/2006 - 1:59 pm
Good try PCD. But nothing short of death of thousands of Americans is going to awaken the left to the facts you so accurately stated.
This is soon to be a war very unlike, and much worse than WWII, if the west doesn’t come together soon. We are akin to the allies in 1937/8 Britain. We can ‘appease’, or ‘resolve’. Their politicians chose ‘appease’. Millions died because of it. We can learn from history… or we can repeat it.
Comment by blogagog @ 2/21/2006 - 2:02 pm
Baklava,
In case you missed this in my earlier post
“Also I said that I know the President DOES have the authority and that authority was strengthed by a vote of congress.”
Comment by GBA @ 2/21/2006 - 2:04 pm
Baklava,
I just got off the phone with Tom Winfrey of Media Relations for Los Angeles World Airports. (310)646-5260
He debunked your LA airport post. Stating that no Los Angeles county airport(LAX, Palmdale, Ontario, Van Nuys,Port of LA or the Port of Long Beach) or port is operated or managed by any foreign entity or company. Did you mean Louisiana?
Comment by GBA @ 2/21/2006 - 2:26 pm
You people are supporting the terrorists. Bush is just trying to help out the arabs that are trying to help us. Either you are with us or against us. If you are against us then get out of America you moonbats.
Comment by Bandar Bush @ 2/21/2006 - 2:26 pm
blogagog
There is no war. Congress never declared it and only Congress can. If this was a real war like WWII then we would attack the people that attacked us on 911 ..Saudi Arabia. Even the republicans are weak and afraid of the Saudis.
Comment by Bandar Bush @ 2/21/2006 - 2:30 pm
GBA, talk to Time Magazine…
They wrote (as noted in ST’s PM update):
While I mistakenly said airlines, the point is clear. Time Magazine is now informing us of stuff they neglected and other media outlets neglected to do until now. I again APPLAUD Time magazine for doing so and doing so with a “calm down” attitude.
And again. Talk to Time Magazine. I’m not the source. You should tell Tom Winfrey to get on the phone and tell Time Magazine to issue a retraction or correction.
Comment by Baklava @ 2/21/2006 - 2:34 pm
I’ll wait to hear the success of Tom…
Because either way, the press has failed…
Comment by Baklava @ 2/21/2006 - 2:35 pm
- Coming in late on this one but already theres straw men flying all over the place, most from our resident “I was for this before I was against it” Liberal GBA.
- One thing to keep in mind the UAE is purchaing the British company, not manning it, so its not clear at this point if they’d be anymore than stockholders, which in my mind significantly reduces any misgivings I might have.
“And the leaks obviously came from within from someone who grew a conscience and is an obvious patriot.”
Thats total BS GBA and you know it. Every “leak” so far turns out to be some partisan hack, purely for political reasons. Anything other than patriotic. Even in the case of the port thing I just heard it was started by a company in Florida that angry about losing out on the bid for the British company. So much for patriotism.
GBA asked, “ DO [I] believe that electronic communication is an essential liberty?
It may be upsetting for you to face it, but communications have no such protections during war time, either in law or the Constitution. Even in peacetime theres no Constitutional “rights” to unmonitored communications, so the courts/states were forced to write their own laws anti tape/tap laws requiring warrents, which still leaves the question of international calls very much up in the air. Basically all the anti-intrusion laws on the books were passed because everyone pretty much agrees your communications “should” be covered under privacy laws, and adhere to the normal law enforcement rules. But its weak, and in war time doesn’t hold. We all have to be careful of “assuming” liberties that are not clearly spelled out.
Anyone that has posted some sort of “heresay” on this thread about “non-suspect” deomestic wiretapping is blowing smoke. Not a single case has come to light, and until it does its just leftwing nattering.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 2/21/2006 - 2:53 pm
Baklava,
My bad on the terminal thing but running terminals is different that managing an entire airport or shipping port. All international airports have foreign tentants that use their terminals. It doesn’t mean that foreign companies are actually running the airport. Same with th ports.
This deal has been in the works for almost beginning of the year. The press failed by not reporting it sooner.
If this an act of cronyism?
Given my previous posted link for DPI’s website it is difficult to come to the conclusion that it is not.
What has not been discussed is how much this is going to cost verses opening the bid to Americans to run their own ports.
Los Angeles’ ports and airports are run and managed by United States citizens. So it stands to reason that these ports in question can easily be run by Americans.
Chertoff spoke of assurances. How is an assurance by a company that has absolutely no interest in our national security of any real value. An assurance is less than a promise.
So essentially they are saying that they will try to maintain security. But they cannot promise, but will we settle for an assurance?
Union Carbide once made many assurances to India about how safe they would run a chemical plant in partnership with that nation. In the end over 15,000 people died because of carelessness of those operating the plant. The families of the victims recieved a pittance for the loss of their loved ones.
Comment by GBA @ 2/21/2006 - 2:57 pm
Bang,
I am no liberal. But I would rather be a liberal than a racist bigot.
You need to reread my post. Baklava already had me reread his and I found my errors. So perhaps you too should review this thread.
Comment by GBA @ 2/21/2006 - 3:01 pm
GBA - You needlessly insulted everyones intelligence on this blogsite on a number of occassions, but calling me a bigot because I had the nerve to point out some of your Liberal cartoons is just total panicky crap on your part, and I reject it out of hand.
- your problem is you spew these phoney comments and when you get called on it you attack people with slanderous lies. I’d suggest you don’t make that mistake again.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 2/21/2006 - 3:07 pm
GBA and Bang - I’m asking nicely that you both please don’t rehash last night’s slugfest. You shouldn’t have brought it up to begin with, GBA. Anymore at this point will be edited and/or deleted.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 2/21/2006 - 3:11 pm
Bang,
Edited. –ST
I tried to verify your Mayor of Debuque/Teamster story last night and came up with a goose egg. Are you sure about that?
you said
“It may be upsetting for you to face it, but communications have no such protections during war time, either in law or the Constitution. Even in peacetime theres no Constitutional “rights” to unmonitored communications, so the courts/states were forced to write their own laws anti tape/tap laws requiring warrents, which still leaves the question of international calls very much up in the air. Basically all the anti-intrusion laws on the books were passed because everyone pretty much agrees your communications “should” be covered under privacy laws, and adhere to the normal law enforcement rules. But its weak, and in war time doesn’t hold. We all have to be careful of “assuming” liberties that are not clearly spelled out.”
Edited. –ST
Comment by GBA @ 2/21/2006 - 3:15 pm
Bang
We all have to be careful of “assuming” liberties that are not clearly spelled out.
From the U.S. Constitution …
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Sounds like we need to be careful of what liberties we think we DONT have… we are THE PEOPLE. We dont need the government at all except as a convenience.
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
- Thomas Jefferson
Comment by Bandar Bush @ 2/21/2006 - 3:16 pm
I generally let things slide ST, but I’m not going to accept childish attacks just to obfuscate lies when I point them out. I didn’t start this. I touched a nerve and got attacked. thats all I have to say.
Understood. We’ll leave it at that. –ST
- Meanwhile back on the topic. I’m amused by some many of the experts concerning the UAE. None of these people in the press know what they’re talking about. The UAE has a security system the envy of every other country in the world. I know. I helped design and build some of it. As far as terrorists, every known terrorist that so much as enters the UAE is immediately arrested, interrogated, and either imprisoned or deported back to their country of origin. We all could take lessons from the UAE on security.
- Having said that, this whole idea is poor thinking at a time when we’re in a war. so I’m not suggesting its defensible. But we should be concerned for the right reasons, not inventing things.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 2/21/2006 - 3:19 pm
GBA asked, “If this an act of cronyism?
I leave that to the “you” types to ask… I don’t offer inaccurate or irresponsible accusations like this (or at least I try not to).
GBA asked, “What has not been discussed is how much this is going to cost verses opening the bid to Americans to run their own ports.
You fail to see (I believe), that this is a purchase of British company who has the contract already by a UAE company. Opening the bid was never a part of the discussion because that would require cancelling the existing contract or ending it early.
GBA wrote in contrast to the reporting of Time Magazine by saying, “Los Angeles’ ports and airports are run and managed by United States citizens.
I hope what you write is true for 2 reasons:
1) Time Magazine will have reported incorrectly once again
2) U.S. will have control of LA ports.
You spoke of assurance in your 2:57 post. I see a negligible difference in assurance based on ownership changing from British to UAE country company ownership. That would be the same if it was American company. I don’t put my faith in individuals I don’t know.
Comment by Baklava @ 2/21/2006 - 3:21 pm
Bang,
Ok.
Why in the world did we ever let any foreign company control vital security areas for the United States?
Why the UAE and why now?
Why not let Americans determine their own security?
Why not put the contracts for each port out for fair bid to Americans?
We all know we a capable of running our own ports.
Where is Roland Betts?
Comment by GBA @ 2/21/2006 - 3:27 pm
1) Why in the world did we ever let any foreign company …? Before 9/11 we were lax. After 9/11 things haven’t changed much and the small things that have happened have been fought tooth and nail.
2) Why the UAE? Because they bought the British company. Why now? Because that was when they did so.
3) Why not let Americans determine their own security? That’s what normal everyday Americans are asking now after the “evaluation by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, an inter-agency body that assesses the security implications of foreign acquisitions of major U.S. infrastructure assets” made it’s decision.
4) Why not put the contracts for each port out for fair bid to Americans? That’s implying that they aren’t out for fair bid to Americans. Where’s your evidence that they were contracts out for bid to foriegn countries only?
Comment by Baklava @ 2/21/2006 - 3:33 pm
- Actually GBA, other than the Florida company I mentioned, so far the only company named as capable of port operation here in the states is Halliburton. There may be others, I’m pretty sure there are, but I have seen any names posted so far. But as to that, of course we should utilize American companies. I think, like a lot of Americans, I didn’t realize this was an issue until all this came out.
- So in that sense if the whole dustup gets the Administration off its dead butt and paying attention to port security, then it will have been very helpful, if not neccessarily started for patriotic reasons. In this case the benefits make the reasons moot.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 2/21/2006 - 3:33 pm
Jimmy Carter
Comment by Baklava @ 2/21/2006 - 3:44 pm
Hillary Clinton
Comment by Baklava @ 2/21/2006 - 3:45 pm
There are certain places most Americans would feel better if only Americans owned. Like nuclear power plants, airports and seaports. If that makes me a racist so be it. On the other hand if the Arabs allowed the United States to buy Mecca, I might be convinced to change my mind. Peace
Comment by steve @ 2/21/2006 - 3:56 pm
GBA,
The letter to the editor was penned by former mayor of Dubuque, Walter Pregler, to the Dubuque Telegraph-Herald. Pregler likens those who cross a picket line to bananas who separate themselves from the bunch should expect to be peeled. Since this was at the height of the UPS strike and a rogue Deputy in Texas who was president of his local declared that UPS drivers who cross the picket line should be arrested and in Florida a driver crossing the picketline was knifed, there is no doubt that Pregler was backing violence to enforce the union’s strike. The paper has an online site at http://www.thonline.com, but it takes a paid subscription to go back and get old articles and letters to the editor, who is Brian Cooper.
Comment by PCD @ 2/21/2006 - 4:00 pm
- I just heard a Liberal talking head on FOX respond to a question about that Steve. When asked how she feels about people saying this is racial profiling and racila bigotry she said “Well airport and port sucurity is ‘different’ and we have a right to profile there.”…
- My oh my….looks like the left is suddenly trying to move hard right when it comes to security….*chuckle*
More left hipocracy - I remember all the yammering from the left outright condeming “profiling” as proof of racism among Conservatives, back when the airports were trying to set up their screening policies. Now all of a sudden when they think its a viable “Bush bad” issue, profiling immediately becomes acceptable.
I think sometimes the left gets caught in its own screeds….
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 2/21/2006 - 4:24 pm
The funny thing is that “profiling” in airports wasn’t to deny anyone their business… It was just to “scrutinize” a little more as it makes sense to focus not so much on elderly Polish grandma’s as opposed to people who look like the 19 hijackers. Scrutinizing doesn’t deny anyone thier constitutional rights and allows them to move on when checked out. They retain their business, their credit cards, their money, their right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Maybe we can use eminent domain laws to just axe the contract post haste even if it’s still British owned.
Comment by Baklava @ 2/21/2006 - 4:30 pm
I think sometimes the left gets caught in its own screeds….
Not exactly sure what you mean here, but that argument is weak. Profiling Americans = bad. Profiling nonAmericans = common sense.
Comment by Bandar Bush @ 2/21/2006 - 4:37 pm
- The Pres. has till the 7th of April to either sign or not sign off on the deal. I’m pretty sure he’ll do the right thing.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 2/21/2006 - 4:37 pm
- The Pres. has till the 7th of April to either sign or not sign off on the deal. I’m pretty sure he’ll do the right thing.
- Bang
http://www.foxnews.com/
Bush: UAE Deal Will Go Through
President vows to veto legislation blocking deal giving UAE company control of U.S. ports
Comment by Bandar Bush @ 2/21/2006 - 4:43 pm
- BTW … Since Jhimmy is for it thats the best reason I can think of, by far, to immediately kill the deal…. *snort*
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 2/21/2006 - 5:32 pm
bush has not done the right or Right thing since he was sworn in, why would he start now? Peace
Comment by steve @ 2/21/2006 - 7:40 pm
I’m still waiting to hear from the PHD packing Economists out there behind a key board to weigh in.
It is not about Islamophobia! Those with an understanding of history, typically have conservative views which leads to having concerns, reasons, fears and most importantly logic. The PC police have no business in this or for that matter most places. (if respect is a practiced pattern and lifestyle). The most striking thing in all of this for me is that so many of the dhimmi’s are on the same page as most of the reasonable and responsible people commenting here.
John Gambling (I think) asks Ann Compton about the port deal and she KNOWS NOTHING about it whatsoever! The nattering ninnies are chompin’ at the bit so bad they miss a major, let me re-phrase, an Actual Real Major (ARM) story because they’re so fixated on the VP. Priority is not news, it’s bash and slash and business as usual, till the waiter drops the drinks! Now like a herd of sheep they plow over each other to “Get the Story” out. What a difference a day makes, eh. The lefty loons run off helter-skelter, abandoning Mr. Cheney’s and their non-starter story of him filling his tag. Dick says BANG and the choir sings AAAAAAHHH!!! There’s your new conspiracy to chew on, for the mad dogs on the left. Keep your eyes on ARM’s and leave the magic to the magicians.
Suddenly, now the Arabs are not our friends as they were the day before. Overnight, they’ve seen the light, but not the err of their ways. Presidents Carter and Clinton, combined with the Al’s shows are running around fanning the flames of the evil America. Now what will become of all this pandering to the poor Islamofascists, I wonder.
This shameless display of the all too typical opaque hypocrisies from the MSM, the democratic leaders and lefty loons should spell out enough reasons to explain why their incapable of responsible leadership.
Comment by forest hunter @ 2/21/2006 - 9:45 pm
forest hunter you are correct about the left chasing every little thing that happens. However the left doesn’t go around talking about arabs being our friends. They talk about treating individual people as people. Even Micheal Moore was talking about the dark ties between the bush family and the Saudis…remember the Saudis …the ones that attacked us on 911. The left has not been saying America is bad …they have been saying Bush and family are bad. This part is true. Bush and family should not even be called republicans. They have dirty deals with people that hate America. A worm has crawled into the republican brain and that worm is called Bush.
Comment by Bandar Bush @ 2/22/2006 - 12:03 pm
And the rest of the Right is confused as to just who the terrorist are. Could the neo-con, armageddonists please publish a score card so innocent people are not spied on and then sent off to fight another illegal war somewhere? Peace
Comment by steve @ 2/22/2006 - 4:23 pm
ST,
I have mostly come to the same conclusiont today hearing all the details finally.
I can see nothing about their ownership that is effectively different then the other foreign compaines running ports. Security concerns are misguided because the port security management is not waffected in any measureable way.
What this is is xenophobia, is islamophobia.
By the way this deal was proposed in October, and ratified in December, and no one cared. It became an issue because of a Florida company involved in the deal and (I think) invvloved in a labor dispute whined to local media and got that states legislatures in an uproar.
There is only one issue that I think needsto be confirmed, and that is the accusation that a mandatory 45 day congressional review was bypassed. If that is true, then abide by the law. If that is not true, then this is much ado over nuthing.
Comment by karl @ 2/23/2006 - 8:32 pm
(D) Senator Levin from Michigan today said that the deal is illegal if not given a 45 day congressional review.
After this was said, if I understand correctly, President Bush agreed to delay it a short time.
On a side note, it would really be interesting to see how the left and right stack up. Who from both sides of the sphere are for it and who are not.
I think that would be interesting to see.
Comment by sanity @ 2/23/2006 - 8:52 pm
Has anyone even considered the fact that it’s immoral to do business with the Emirates? Recognition of the Taliban should gives us pause.
Comment by kevin @ 2/23/2006 - 11:23 pm
It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the trade of a priest for the sake of gain, and in order to qualify himself for that trade, he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive any thing more destructive to morality than this?
-Thomas Paine
Age of Reason
Comment by Bandar Bush @ 3/3/2006 - 8:56 pm
I have never been so embarrassed by the Political sabotage done by the media-political machine in our country! I am currently serving Iraq and can tell you that the UAE has been a GREAT ally to the U.S. The UAE port management deal was good for the U.S. in many ways. Most importantly, it helps distinguish the Middle Eastern Countries which are clearly on our side in the fight against radical terrorists. By striking down this deal we now told our friends in the region that it doesn’t matter if they are with or against us, as we will treat all of them the same. If you use the argument that the UAE had peripheral involvement in the actions of the 9/11 terrorists, then we might as well stop doing business with the State of Virginia, Nevada, and Florida as well. I we all take time to learn the facts about issues before Americaonce again gets hood-winked by fear and sensationalism.
Comment by John G. @ 3/10/2006 - 11:54 am