Of course, no such thing occurred after September 11, 2001 . In fact, the job of keeping our planes and the flying public secure was deemed to be so important that the government itself took it over from private contractors seen as insufficiently rigorous in executing that responsibility.
Now, however, four-and-a-half years later, a secretive government committee has decided to turn over the management of six of the Nation's most important ports -- in New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Miami, Baltimore and New Orleans -- to Dubai Ports World following the UAE company's purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which previously had the contract.
This is not the first time this interagency panel -- called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) -- has made an astounding call about the transfer of control of strategically sensitive U.S. assets to questionable purchasers. In fact, as of last summer, CFIUS had, since its creation in 1988, formally rejected only one of 1,530 transactions submitted for its review.
Such a record is hardly surprising given that the committee is chaired by the Treasury Department, whose institutional responsibilities include promoting foreign investment in the United States. Treasury has rarely seen a foreign purchase of American assets that it did not like. And this bias on the part of the chairman of CFIUS has consistently skewed the results of the panel's deliberations in favor of approving deals, even those opposed by other, more national security-minded departments.
Thanks to the secrecy with which CFIUS operates, it is not clear at this writing whether any such objection was heard with respect to the idea of contracting out management of six of our country's most important ports to a UAE company. There would certainly appear to be a number of grounds for rejecting this initiative, however:
1) America 's seaports have long been recognized by homeland security experts as among our most vulnerable targets. Huge quantities of cargo move through them every day, much of it of uncertain character and provenance, nearly all of it inadequately monitored. Matters can only be made worse by port managers who might conspire to bring in dangerous containers, or simply look the other way when they arrive.
2) Entrusting information about key U.S. ports -- including, presumably, government-approved plans for securing them, to say nothing of the responsibility for controlling physical access to these facilities, to a country known to have been penetrated by terrorists is not just irresponsible. It is recklessly so.
3) At the risk of being politically incorrect, the proposed new management will also complicate the job of assuring that the personnel working in these ports pose no threat to their operations -- or to the rest of us. To the extent that we must remain particularly vigilant about young male Arab nationals as potential terrorists, it makes no sense to provide legitimate grounds for such individuals to be in and around some of this country's most important strategic assets.
4) Of particular concern must be the implications for energy security as a very large proportion of the Nation's oil imports come through the Atlantic and Gulf State ports that the UAE company hopes to take over. For example, Philadelphia alone handles some 85% of the oil coming into the East Coast; New Orleans is responsible for one-seventh of all of our imported energy.
Given such considerations, the question occurs: How could even a stacked deck like the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States find it possible to approve the Dubai Ports World's transaction?
Could it have been influenced by the fact that a former senior official of the UAE company, David Sanborn, was recently named the new administrator of the Transportation Department's Maritime Administration? Until recently, Sanborn was DP World's director of operations for Europe and Latin America.
Or is it because the U.S. government views -- and is determined to portray -- the United Arab Emirates as a vital ally in this war for the Free World? A similar determination has long caused Washington to treat Saudi Arabia as a valued friend, even as the Saudis continue playing a double game whereby they work simultaneously to repress terrorism at home and abet it abroad.
Whatever the explanation, the Nation can simply no longer afford to have the disposition of strategic assets -- including those that have a military or homeland security dimension -- determined by a Treasury-dominated panel whose deliberations and decisions are made in secret without congressional oversight.
Congress should see to it that the United Arab Emirates is not entrusted with the operation of any American ports, and that the Treasury Department is stripped of the lead role in evaluating such dubious foreign investments in the United States.
Sound Off...What do you think? Join the discussion.
http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/international-affairs/exon-florio/
Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS)
It's absolutely mind-boggling. Makes me wonder how serious about national security the government is.
My biggest gripe about the Bush administration is that they never push for national security if it inconveniences corporate interests. This is not conservativism but corporatism. And the central core of corporatism is that patriotism and service to country don't apply to the wealthy and powerful.
PING a LING!!!
As I have said all along, this must be blocked. Bush has already gone on record supporting it. Therefore, we have to persuade our friends in congress to block it.
Every one of the four arguments this article makes is well founded, and any one of them should be enough to be a deal breaker.
There is a certain level of stupidity in the Bush administration that is absolutely incomprehensible. What concerns me more than this decision, though, is the silence out of the administration about it. Why are they waiting to come out and say something like "Oops, Sorry, we goofed", and reverse this decision?
Is Bush nuts?
>>>>"Federal law requires the president or his designee investigate the impact on national security of a foreign acquisition if the acquisition 'could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the United States that could affect the national security of the United States,'” reads the letter signed by Sens. Schumer, Tom Coburn, R-Okla., Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and Chris Dodd, D-Conn., as well as Reps. Chris Shays, R-Conn., Vito Fossella, R-N.Y., and Mark Foley, R-Fla.
That sounds like a reasonable request. It also sounds like something the Feds shouldbe turning down. We don't want Muslims and Arabs who hate the US to be running our docks and ports. Not now, not ever. If this is a normal practice that is going on today, it should stopped immediately.
Feb 18, 2006
Suing To Stop Arab Takeover Of Miami Port(AP) WASHINGTON, DC ... In New York, families of some victims from the September 2001 terror attacks planned to criticize the deal during a press conference Sunday with Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer, a leading critic of the sale. Schumer said he is dubious any assurances can justify involvement by the United Arab Emirates in American ports.
Schumer and other critics have cited the UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks against New York and Washington.
"A lot of families are incensed by this, because you're talking about the safety of the country," said William Doyle, whose son Joseph died at the World Trade Center. ""We have a problem already in our ports because all of our containers aren't checked, but now they want to add this unknown? It's not right."
http://cbs4.com/topstories/local_story_049225905.html
Administration Hiding Key 9/11 Financial Documents
Sun, 09 Oct 2005
By Greg Szymanski
Republished from Arctic BeaconAnd Doyle recalls when the jetliner hit the towers feeling like a bolt of lightning passed through his body, knowing his young son was in one of the worst possible places, working on the 101st floor at Cantor Fitzgerald in the North Tower. ...
Tragically, however, his son became one of the 658 Cantor employees who never made it out of the WTC. Tragically, like so many other family members who lost loved ones, Doyle has had to undergo "a living hell" in every aspect concerning the WTC attacks, from the emotional pain and scars of losing a son to the callous arrogance and outright lies from the Bush administration. ...
Besides his emotional ties to the victims and his efforts to make sure everybody he comes in contact with gets the needed psychological and emotional help, Doyle takes an active role as one of the thousands of plaintiffs involved in an active trillion dollar lawsuit filed against the alleged financial perpetrators of 9/11.
The ongoing suit, filed by the South Carolina firm of Motley Rice, is attempting to recover damages for the victims by uncovering the money trail behind 9/11, which eventually leads to the true perpetrators who caused the mass murder of approximately 3,000 people.
And Doyle said whats so strange about uncovering the truth about the financial trail is that the U.S. government has been the main obstacle, not foreign banks or governments.
There was a 28 page bi-partisan report released to the government, headed by Sen. Phil Gramm, which should tell us about who funded 9/11, said Doyle about information sought by attorneys from Motley Rice, one of the only law firms in the country able to afford to handle this massive civil suit, which has already cost the firm over 25 million in expenses.
This report has since been kept secret and classified by the Bush administration ever since they got their hands on it. Our lawyers have repeatedly asked for this information, but the administration will not release it. What are they hiding?
Recently, I sent letters to all the lawmakers on Capitol Hill, including the White House, demanding this information be released so we can get at the truth. After making a lot of noise, I finally heard from the White House press secretary, who released a statement that the information was now not classified but could not be released since it may jeopardize sources being investigated by the government. ...
I honestly dont believe the government story, said Doyle, adding everything about the official story and the follow-up investigation has not lived up to his or most all the other victims and survivors expectations. The 9/11 Commission report doesnt even begin to get at the truth. They ignored most of he family member's serious questions and failed to even incorporate the findings of the 28 page bipartisan report looking into the financial links to 9/11 as well as any solid information leading to names involved with insider trading stock profits and 9/11.
In fact, they didnt even include testimony made by William Rodriguez, the janitor who has solid evidence about explosions in the WTC basement and other vital testimony from witnesses who basically ripped into shreds the official government story. ...
He came to my door with documents saying he could prove the Mossad was involved with the hijackers through their association with them through flight schools, said Doyle about the man whose identity is being protected for his safety.
When he left the information, he tore a dollar bill in half, keeping half and giving me the other half, saying whoever I choose to give the information to must present the torn dollar bill. If this information checks out, it could provide another solid link to what really happened on 9/11.
Besides the suspicious man who came to his doorstep, Doyle said another story ignored by the 9/11 Commission and cover-up by the government involves the actions of terrorist ringleader, Muhammad Atta, the night before 9/11 when he stayed at the Comfort Inn in Portland Maine.
I know the 9/11 Commission took the testimony of the night manager at the Comfort Inn, but never included it in its final report, said Doyle. Also I know the FBI confiscated the hotels surveillance tapes, never making them public. The night manager insisted that there was a third person along with Atta and the other hijacker reported to be with him at the Portland airport. Supposedly this third person never boarded the plane, but for some reason no one wants to bother to find him. ...
Doyle, a former stockbroker, is outreach director for the WTC United Families Group and treasurer for the 9/11 Families Group.
There are two possibilities...It's a good deal and the administration has done its usual poor job of communicating it, allowing its political enemies to control the story...Or, it's another Meiers-like fiasco.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Misleading comparison right off the bat.
A terminal operator isn't contracted to do Port security.
Thank God for people like Frank Gaffney.