Arab takeover of U.S. ports seen as security 'insanity'

President asked to stop deal for Dubai firm to control 6 American maritime operations

A company owned by the government of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates is poised to take over six U.S. ports, a development that has local and federal elected officials outraged.

A merger deal approved by the federal government has the company currently running the ports, London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, getting acquired by the Emirati firm, Dubai Ports World. UAE has known ties to terrorists and 9-11 hijackers, raising concerns about security issues at the ports involved: New York, Baltimore, New Jersey, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

"On its face, this looks like [expletive] insanity to me," the Republican minority leader of the New York City Council, James Oddo, told the New York Sun.

"This shouldn't happen. It really boggles the mind," Rachel Ehrenfeld, director of the American Center for Democracy told the New York paper. She said the United Arab Emirates is "a big hub for all kinds of terrorist activities. ... We know that terrorist money is being laundered there."

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., also spoke out against the merger, which is scheduled to be finalized March 2.

"Should we be outsourcing our own security?" Schumer said on the Fox News Channel. "We have to have hands-on control of things. And to have United Arab Emirates – I mean, they are a country that's allied with the U.S., but at the same time a whole bunch of the (September 11) hijackers came from the United Arab Emirates."

Continued Schumer: "I think there ought to be a full and public review before this company is allowed to control security up and down the East Coast. The issue is not the head of the company. I'm sure he's been checked out. But how good is their security? How good do they check on their employees? Could people infiltrate this company a lot more easily than they could infiltrate an American company?"

Monday, Schumer called on the Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff to review the deal. It was OK'd by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a federal panel composed of the secretaries of 12 federal agencies. Dubai Ports World said in a statement the committee "thoroughly reviewed the potential transaction and concluded they had no objection."

The senator claimed the committee's approval "seems to have been unnecessarily fast-tracked." Other's have called it a rubber stamp for the Bush administration.

Last month, the White House appointed a senior Dubai Ports World executive, David C. Sanborn of Virginia, to be the new administrator of the Maritime Administration of the Transportation Department, the Associated Press reported.

According to the Sun, Ali Al-Ahmed, director of the Institute for Gulf Affairs, noted the United Arab Emirates "has been fueling the insurgency in Iraq. They have hosted a lot of the Sunni insurgent supporters and Sunni insurgents.

"If they're allowing this to happen in their country – al-Qaida activities and Sunni insurgent in Iraq activities – why shouldn't they allow it in New York, where it's going to be more and more valuable?"

"Does this pose a national security risk? I think that's pushing the envelope," Stephen E. Flynn, who studies maritime security at the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations, told AP. "It's not impossible to imagine one could develop an internal conspiracy, but I'd have to assign it a very low probability."

There are several 9-11 connections to the United Arab Emirates. Many of the hijackers entered the U.S. via UAE, much of the attack's planning was done there, and the FBI says money for the operation was transferred to the hijackers primarily through the UAE's banking system.

"Do we really want our major ports in the hands of an Arab country where al-Qaida recruits, travels and wires money?

"We should be improving port security in an age of terrorism, not outsourcing decisions to the highest bidder. The ports are thought to be the country's weakest homeland-security link, with good reason. Only a fraction of the nation's maritime cargoes are inspected. …

"President Bush should overrule the committee to reject this deal. If that doesn't happen, Congress should take action. The country's ports should not be owned by foreign governments; much less governments whose territories are favored by al-Qaida."

What can be done to stop this? If we let 6 major ports be controlled by a terrorist-sponsoring nation, we're not serious about the War on Terror.

http://webnewsroom.blogspot.com/2006/02/re-portgate.html

For once, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) is right about something. I guess it just goes to show that even a blind bird catches a worm once in a while.

What Schumer is right about is his opposition to the deal that would allow Dubai Ports World, a company based in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), to gain control of six major American ports through its purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Staem Navigation Company, which currently runs the ports: New York, Newark, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New Orleans, and Miami.

The obvious question is, aren't there any American companies capable of running these ports? And the more important question is, Are we serious about the War on Terror? We have left our borders wide open for anyone (including terrorists) to come through and now we are turning control of six major ports over to a country that sponsors terrorism.

The deal has been approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, but Schumer, along with Senators Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Representaties Vito Fossella (R-NY), Christopher Shays (R-Ct.), and Mark Foley (R-Fla.), is trying to stop the transaction. REpresentaigve Peter King (R-NY), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has urged the Bush Administration to reconsider.

New York City Council members of both parties have spoken out against the deal. "On its face, this looks like insanity to me," the Republican minority leader of the City Council, James Oddo, said. The chairman of the Council's Public Safety Committee, Democrat Peter Vallone, said that the deal "raises some legitimate concerns."

The Bush administration considers the UAE a key ally in the War on Terror, but the UAE has been a sponsor of terrorism. It was the home of Marwan al-Shehi, one of the 19 hijackers who killed 3,000 people on September 11, 2001. Other hijackers travelled through the UAE. The UAE was an important financial base for the September 11 hijackers. The country is a transit point for Al Qaeda. It has been a financier of Al Qaeda. It continues to regard the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan and is militantly anti-Israel. The CIA has identified the UAE as a major center for drug running and money laundering. It also has close ties to Iran.

The UAE is a federation of seven Arab emirates on the Arabian peninsula.

As Rep. Foley has said, "If our ports are the most vulnerable targets for terrorism and if we are at war, as the president says, we should be overly critical of handing over the management of our ports to any foreign countries, post 9/11."

What happens if nuclear materials pass through one of these ports? How will the UAE direct its employees to deal with that? The threat to our national security is clear.

That is why these Senators and Representatives are right to speak out against the transfer of control of our ports to UAE control, just as Red Chinese control of the Panama Canal poses a threat to our national security.

Can we afford to turn control of key ports over to a company controlled by a terrorist-sponsoring government?

Q. How many nukes can you conceal in a standard shipping container?

A. One. (Why would you need more than one?)

Also worthy of note that a mechanized division can deploy rather quickly from a "Ro-Ro" (Roll-on, roll-off cargo ship.) It wouldn't take much imagination to seize several key ports, hold nearby residents hostage, and strangle the country. Actually, it would take zero imagination. The Russians used that trick in Clancy's "Red Storm Rising."
We know the terrorists steal his ideas, since in "Debt of Honor" (published pre-9/11) a Japanese pilot kamikazes a 747 into the Capitol, killing the President and most of Congress.

"Think about it - if an attack were to happen, the UAE would know we'd blame them first. They'd be on the top of our hitlist, like the Taliban was."

Now you think about it. They'd be "on the top of our hitlist" because they are Arab muslims who support the Taliban as rightful rulers of Afghanistan. This being the case, WTF are we doing even considering letting these people run our port security?

We are in a war against muslim terrorists and those who support terrorists, so we are hiring muslims who support terrorists for our port security? Has this whole country gone insane? There is no excuse, no apology for this madness. What is Bush thinking?

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.