Posted on 02/25/2006 8:55:35 PM PST by Carl/NewsMax
One of most powerful arguments against the takeover of six major U.S. ports by Dubai Ports World is that two of 9/11 hijackers were born in the United Arab Emirates, home to the embattled ports operator.
Indeed, the 9/11 Commission report has no fewer than 18 references to Dubai, noting that several hijackers traveled through the city repeatedly and used a Dubai-based relative of Khalid Sheik Mohammed to transmit financing for the attacks.
But it turns out that the companies most qualified take DPW's place pose similar security risks, at least by the standards currently applied to the DPW takeover.
According to a 2005 "Annual Review of Global Container Terminal Operators" published by Drewry Shipping Consultants Ltd., Hutchison Port Holdings tops the list of DPWs competitors.
The chairman of Hutchison-Whampoa, HPH's parent company, is Chinese billionaire Li Ka-shing.
In May 2003 Insight Magazine reported that Li has been "closely linked to former Chinese military intelligence director, Gen. Ji Shengde." Li also "sits on a board of a company tied to the Chinese People's Liberation Army that allegedly has sold arms to Iran and Pakistan."
Next on Drewry's port operators list in PSA Corporation - which bills itself as "one of the leading marine service providers in the world." PSA is, however, based in Singapore - a location where - according to a Dec. 2005 review by The Economist's Intelligence Unit Ltd. - security precautions are "rather relaxed" and a terrorist attack is "highly likely."
"One scenario causing the authorities particular concern is an attack on port facilities, possibly using a hijacked ship," the Economist said.
"On a number of occasions the government has [said] . . . . that an attack taking place in Singapore was highly likely. More generally, the government's support for the US-led war on terrorism, coupled with its support for the US invasion of Iraq - an action condemned by many countries with a majority Muslim population - has further added to Singapore's vulnerability. Businesses may need to step up the current, rather relaxed, security precautions in their buildings."
The A.P. Moller-Maersk Group is third on Drewry's ports list. That company, however, is based in Denmark, which has become the target of worldwide Muslim outrage spurred by derogatory cartoons of Mohammed published in a Danish newspaper last year.
More than a few extremist imams have issued fatwahs against the Danes, with followers saying their cartoonists should be beheaded. In recent weeks, cartoon protesters have vowed revenge against both Denmark and the U.S., invoking the name of Osama bin Laden.
The next largest ports operator is the China Ocean Shipping Company [COSCO], a state-owned company whose containers were used in 1996 in a bid to smuggle thousands of illegal weapons into the U.S. through the port of Oakland.
On the night of March 18, 1996, undercover Customs and BATF agents discovered 2000 AK-47's in a container smuggled aboard the COSCO ship "Empress Phoenix."
According to a report in Vanity Fair magazine, Chinese operatives nabbed in the sting explained that they were ready to smuggle in everything from grenade launchers to surface to air missiles, which they boasted could "take out a 747."
Next on Drewry's list of port operators comes Eurogate, which calls itself "Europe’s leading network of container terminal logistics."
However, Eurogate is based in Hamburg, Germany - a city with an even more troubling 9/11 connection than Dubai. Germany's largest port city played host to the notorious "Hamburg Cell," where Mohamed Atta, Marwan al Shehhi and other further 9/11 hijackers formulated plans to attack America and traveled back and forth to Afghanistan for training.
Another major Drewry list container terminal operator - Hapag-Lloyd AG and Hamburger Hafen-und Lagerhaus AG - has the same Hamburg headquarters problem.
Those who favor American ownership of U.S. ports might think that a terminal operator with the name, the American President Lines, would fit the bill. But they'd be wrong. Coming in at 12 on Drewry's list, APL is headquartered in Singapore, whose security risks have already been covered.
The one American-owned company that could handle the job of running the ports purchased by Dubai Ports World is SSA Marine, a Seattle-based company that boasts of operating "more cargo terminals than any other company in the world."
However, the Western Stevedoring Company, an SSA subsidiary, is based in Canada's Vancouver Island - a location that also has a Dubai-like association with al Qaeda.
Before he was apprehended by an alert U.S. Customs agent in Dec. 1999, would-be LAX bomber Ahmed Ressam stayed in Vancouver in the weeks before attempting to enter the U.S.
What's more, Washington state, SSA's home base, isn't exactly free of terrorist connections either.
In Sept. 2004, Washington National Guard Specialist Ryan G. Anderson was convicted on five counts of trying to give al Qaeda information on U.S. troop strength, tactics and vulnerabilities. Military officials said Anderson's actions amounted to "attempted treason."
Specialist Anderson graduated from Washington State University in 2002 with a degree in military history, specializing in the Middle East.
Fortunately for those concerned with port security, we'll never know what might have happened had Mr. Anderson joined the Merchant Marine instead of the Guard.
ping
First off, DPW will not be taking over any port. They will be leasing terminals at US owned and operated ports.
Second, we have home grown terrorists, so should we stop dealing with US companies? DPW had nothing to do with 9/11 and neither did the UAE Government.
That doesn't matter, it's all meaningless. Or so we'll be told shortly.
"According to a report in Vanity Fair magazine, Chinese operatives nabbed in the sting explained that they were ready to smuggle in everything from grenade launchers to surface to air missiles, which they boasted could "take out a 747.""
Is there any evidence that the ChiComs are trying to stockpile small arms and man portable missiles in the US?
I gotta assume this whole article is tongue in cheek. You can't possibly expect anyone to take this seriously.
thank god you're all back. I thought for sure we'd been swallowed by the DU.
"Second, we have home grown terrorists, so should we stop dealing with US companies? DPW had nothing to do with 9/11 and neither did the UAE Government."
Objection to DPW running port operations in these places is not about NOT POLICING for security risks; it's about eliminating unnecessary risks where they can be removed. Why would we add one more item to check to an already lax port security system?
We have this one side arguing that since they're already there, nothing is wrong with keeping them there. We have another, much smaller side, arguing that they're a bunch of A-rabs and we need `em out out out! And there are those of us who simply point out that, as Krauthammer admits, that this is one more risk we don't need to take. Krauthammer says that having made the deal, we need to go through with it. I say that, having made mistakes, we need to correct them, and remove security risks like the UAE and Hutchison-Whampoa as well as any other foreign operators in our ports. Simply have American companies run the ports, and there will be no issues with discrimination--we'll just eliminate from consideration everyone who isn't American, at least when it comes to managing national security assets. After all, the government does that in hiring for its most sensitive jobs, every single day.
This whole thing is starting to remind me of the McCarthy era. Except that this time, I feel like most of the GOP is on the wrong side.
"I gotta assume this whole article is tongue in cheek. You can't possibly expect anyone to take this seriously."
I was thinking the same thing BUMP.
We might have a problem here again - apparently they are taking over 21 ports, not 6.
http://upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060223-051657-4981r
If we had enough American companies that were capable to do so, then that would be a good idea, unfortunately we don't.
it's about eliminating unnecessary risks where they can be removed. Why would we add one more item to check to an already lax port security system?
There is zero risk involved. The only risk is a perceived risk, not a real risk. Also, our ports are much more secure then the MSM want you to believe.
You folks need to stop reading the crap the media is putting out.
No one is taking over any ports. DPW is buying a UK company and acquiring the leases to 22 terminals at various ports around the US.
Sorry, they are taking over P&O Operations at 6 ports, (is that better): But, my point is that the contract involves alot more than 6 ports, The media has not been mentioning the additional 15 ports
"If we had enough American companies that were capable to do so, then that would be a good idea, unfortunately we don't."
But Rush and everyone pushing the deal seem so certain that no actual employees will be different, that the only people involved are top functionaries simply collecting profits. Why is it so tough to get some other company to do THAT work?
"There is zero risk involved. The only risk is a perceived risk, not a real risk. Also, our ports are much more secure then the MSM want you to believe."
Zero risk involved. Check. Merely a perceived risk. Check. Ports secure. Check.
[KAFF, HACK, BLAAARF]
Sorry, I couldn't swallow all that. I know we check 100% of our incoming stuff for radioactivity. I know we check our high risk stuff before it even leaves the foreign port. What I don't know is that simply having the operational plans for the ports in any UAE given citizen's hands would merely a perceived risk. I think it's an actual risk, and I'm a tad biased, sure, but I'm not willing to agree that we should gamble on a 'perceived risk' when we can simply tell foreign companies that in these certain areas, we don't deal in 'perceived risks.' And I don't buy that our ports are secure--they probably ARE more secure than the MSM is painting them, but until we're sure of every container, they're not as secure as they should be in a time of war.
Yes they are. They have gotten the story wrong from the beginning.
Feel free to start up an American company that can or contact one you think can and ask them why they don't.
Sorry, I couldn't swallow all that.
Understood; a Rasmussen poll was taken the other day, and it showed that 83% of Americans are clueless about the operation of our ports.
Thank you for posting that very informative article. It should be the subject of its own thread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.