Bush will veto any bill to stop port deal

AP ALERT

[Brian Mosely]

ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE (AP) — President Bush says the deal allowing an Arab company to take over six major U.S. seaports should go forward and he will veto any bill that would stop it.

[Flifuss]

A CBP   (U.S. Customs and Border Protection) deployment team will work closely with the UAE government personnel to target high-risk cargo containers destined for the United States.

If we have our Customs Agents at Dubai ports flagging containers for inspection, I think we will still have Customs Agents inspecting containers here.As the article states: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is the unified border agency within the Department of Homeland Security charged with the management, control, and protection of our Nation's borders at and between the official ports of entry. CBP is charged with keeping terrorists and terrorist weapons out of the country

[inquest]

I didn't say we wouldn't be having agents here as well. I was just saying that the program itself wasn't about improving security at the destination end (here).

Basically what I'm saying is that it's all well and good to be having this program in other countries. But that would not make up for letting a foreign government - especially a Middle Eastern foreign government that seems to be only nominally on our side - have access to situations where our port security here might be compromised.

And as for whether it actually would be compromised, we have Congressman Markey's observations on the subject, which I'm still awaiting rebuttal on. Also, the fact that the administration says that it subjected this purchase to multiple levels of review seems to be an acknowledgment on its part that there really is a security dimension to all this, contrary to claims that have been echoed on this thread that this company's operations will have nothing to do with port security.

[Flifuss]

As to Markey argued that DP World would be responsible for performing "significant security functions," including placing security officers at the facility, providing for security training for facility personnel and determining access to the facility.

When the ports were operated by the British Company, were Americans employed at the company or were all the port workers British? And don't we have background checks for foriegn workers to gain working visas

In my younger days, I was employed in security by a company building Army ordinance. I went through a background check by the company and the U.S. government even though the U.S. government didn't own the plant.

Since the government owns the ports, I would be in favor of having government background checks of the port employees, American and foriegn.

[inquest]

In my younger days, I was employed in security by a company building Army ordinance. I went through a background check by the company and the U.S. government even though the U.S. government didn't own the plant.

Nonetheless, would you have considered it appropriate if the plant was owned by Communist China, even if everyone who went back and forth to it had to get a security check?

And if it really doesn't matter, then why do these transactions (like the takeover of operations of those ports by Dubai) get subjected to any government scrutiny at all?

[Flifuss]

would you have considered it appropriate if the plant was owned by Communist China

I think Communist China already runs some of our ports.

The company I worked for built high tech products, so, I don't think the U.S. would have allowed China to own it. I think a company thats just loads and unloads cargo containers doesn't fall into that category.

[inquest]

Then why did the government feel the need to review the sale at all? Bush was emphatic that sales like this are always subject to tight review by our security agencies.

[Flifuss]

The administration's review of the deal was conducted by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a body that was created in 1975 to review foreign investments in the country that could affect national security. Under that review, officials from the Defense, State, Commerce and Transportation Departments, along with the National Security Council and other agencies, were charged with raising questions and passing judgment. They found no problems to warrant the next stage of review, a 45-day investigation with results reported to the president for a final decision.

However, a 1993 amendment to the law stipulates that such an investigation is mandatory when the acquiring company is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government. Administration officials said they conducted additional inquires because of the ties to the United Arab Emirates, but they could not say why a 45-day investigation did not occur.

From http://michellemalkin.com/

[Flifuss]

I think the 45 day review as required by law should not have been skipped and should be done now to fulfill the requirements of the 1993 amendment to the law.

[carolinacrazy]

I can tell you unequivocally, that Markey is wrong. Homeland security is in charge of security, how it is trained and definitely how it is dispatched. Any other thought or belief to the contrary is absurd.

This is nothing more than politicizing something that should raise concern, but not of the importance being placed on it by politicians.

[inquest]

I think the 45 day review as required by law should not have been skipped and should be done now to fulfill the requirements of the 1993 amendment to the law.

So there is a security aspect to this?

[inquest]

So they don't delegate any responsibilities at all to the companies operating the ports, nor rely on them for backup? Homeland Security has enough personnel to make sure that everything is properly inspected and secured?

[Flifuss]

to review foreign investments in the country that could affect national security

I think the operative word here is "could". The review was initiated because a foreign government has involvement in the company.

[inquest]

The impression I get is that the "could" part refers to the nature of the sale itself, not the parties to it. In other words, any takeover of port operations "could" have national security implications, according to the law, and then it falls to the executive branch to look into the matter to see if it actually does. Based on how the article you posted describes the situation, the additional 45-day period was part of the 1975 law from the beginning, but only optional. The 1993 amendment made it mandatory in those cases. There doesn't seem to be any point in enacting that amendment, unless it was mandatory regardless of whether or not the sale passed the first stage of review.

[DoNotDivide]

"Company Policy" Frank Gaffney on Port Security on NRO

[mad_as_he$$]

True they are documented at the source - but what happens to them during transit? If I wanted to get something in a container I would do it at sea with less people around. As for the security at sea it is what you pay for it. The seals are easily forged and replaced.

[mad_as_he$$]

I couldn't agree more. That is the issue - vertical integration of an inside job.

[hedgetrimmer]

The current policy has its roots in the Clinton adminstration and the "free trader" dictum of "leveling the playing field".

From 1999:MARAD and its partners are making significant contributions to the restructuring of government's role in U.S. commercial shipbuilding. The government's focus is no longer predominately directed at enforcement of regulations. Government is becoming a proactive partner with industry in leveling the playing field in world shipbuilding markets,

See italics. This is why our maritime industry is in such dire shape, and also why foreign governments have been given access to it.

[DoNotDivide]

It's time to start reversing the tides, and these ports are the first step. Notice that the media has all dropped this, almost on cue.

[ohioWfan]

Of course, if anyone not nameed Bush had said something like that they would be crucified by the Bushbots.

You are absolutely pathetic, Jeff. Delusional, paranoid, spiteful and on the edge of insanity.

Do you need someone to love you? Can you buy a dog? Should you give your mother a call and have her tell you she loves you? Or call Dr. Laura?

Seriously, you need to get over this emotional problem that makes you attack the sane and healthy people around you. Seek professional help.

There's nothing I can do for you from here.........except wish you luck.

But know one thing for sure......I don't let freeper thugs and liars like you intimidate me. Lie all you want. Accuse all you want. Fabricate all you want. Continue to allow your fantasies and delusions keep you from grasping life as it really is and continue to mock the people around you who are emotionally stable......like me, for instance.

But realize that the whole world knows that you're doing it. You're not fooling anyone around here. You're just making yourself look like a complete idiot.

Is that the reputation you really want around here?

[ohioWfan]

Hey..........you can sound like Chuckie Schumer if you want to RC. It's your choice to rant like a leftist if you want to.......please don't let me stop you.

Lots of pseudo conservatives do that around here all the time.