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

World Net Daily ^ | Posted: February 15, 2006February 15, 2006 3:24 p.m. Eastern | WorldNetDaily

[Cinnamon]

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?"

Other analysts are less alarmed.

"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.

Opined the Washington Times today:

"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."

[madconserv]

Yes he did.
The UAE was one of the few nations that ever recognized the Taliban.
Maybe thats why.

[sangrila]

His or her posts got removed. I think the account got banned. I was just wondering what happened because I missed the second post before it got pulled.

[SoldiersPrayingMom]

Well, Didn't Rome fall from within? ......So, a Nation divided against itself cannot stand either!!! Need we say further what's coming around our bend?
If this is W's idea of a good thing...I'm really ashamed of him!!! I've supported him to the teeth, but I can't support him on this!!!

I heard this on KSFO AM 1530 on my car radio and almost drove in the ditch over this one!!! Sounded pretty scary to me!!

[sangrila]

Yeah, we might as well let the PLO replace the Secret Service.

[madconserv]

LOL. Wait, why am I laughing? I mean whats next? I know. The Dems win 2008. Dems, PLO, whats the dif!?

[Colorado Buckeye]

How in the frickin' world can Bush be so right on some things and soooo wrong on others? Whats up with this guy? I'm serious!

1. Bush is a globalist first.

2. He thinks that Islam is a religion of peace.

Also note: He looked into Putin's eyes and saw peace and love.

[Tolik]

Lunacy !

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately  on  my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.  

[Tolik]

It is as smart as empowering Arafat to get rid of Hamas. Idiocy.

[CowboyJay]

"This guy's probably right. 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. Heck, they'd have a vested interest in providing extra-strong security so there are no "misunderstandings"."

Yeah...

We seem to think that we can 'buy the peace' by trading freely with our enemies. Mistake. Appeasement is appeasement.

Hell, while we're at it, why don't we all just convert to Islam, make Spanish our national language, and submit all our communications to a Chinese censorship tribunal? Nobody'd want to attack us then, right? Right?

A: Because this country would no longer be worth defending.

I don't mind people defending Bush as a man, but it really is time to quit defending some of his policy mistakes.

[FreedomPoster]

>>Has this been on MSM yet?

Heck, no. All available Old Media bandwidth has been chewed up by the Dick Cheney story. It is obviously of much more national importance.

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.
Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking the keyword or topic Israel.

---------------------------

[silverleaf]

The UAE is actively pushing to increase its ties with Iran....... Still recognizes the taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.....and refuses to recognize Israel.

We really got to be nuts to have a foreign "ally" like this controlling the business operations of the ports serving the US northeastern seaboard. What do we think would happen if Iran really put the screws to Israel? Which side would the UAE be on?

Not to mention the Chinese Whampo company (with its ties to Chinese military intelligence) now controlling the business operations (including hiring the pilots who take ships through the Canal) on both sides of the Panama Canal.

[sarasota]

I've been hearing a lot about Dubai lately, especially in the promotion of it as a tourist area.

[quant5]

"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."

To me it is a WHEN and not an IF we have a nuclear terrorist attack. Our own intelligence have stated the same. When it does occur, it will not be surprising a nuclear device comes into one of our major ports, hidden by terrorists employed in a shipping company. This deal should be squashed immediately.

[GOPJ]

ping

[TBP]

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?

[TBP]

If we're not serious aobut the War on Terror, for all the reasons you mentioned, then could the left be right that the main purpose was to increase government power over us?

[Cedar]

"The obvious question is, aren't there any American companies capable of running these ports?"

That is the question to be answered. I find it hard to believe the most prosperous nation in the world cannot run its own ports.

I think it's time to begin operation of an underlying "organization" which will handle our country's various problems for the good. In this case--promoting and closing out the deal for American companies to run the ports. Surely this is attainable.

[KeyLargo]

Dubai ports takeover prompts backlash

>By Stephanie Kirchgaessner and Edward Alden in Washington
>Published: February 16 2006 23:00 |
>>

Washington lawmakers on Thursday expressed deep reservations about Dubai Ports World’s £3.9bn acquisition of P&O, the UK-based port operator, on the grounds that the deal represented a potential national security threat, and demanded that the White House re-open a regulatory review of the deal.

In a letter to Treasury secretary John Snow, Senator Richard Shelby, an influential Alabama Republican, stopped short of calling for the deal to be blocked, but said the transaction merited further scrutiny, potentially raising complications for DP World’s bid. Mr Shelby is expected to call for a hearing to discuss the issue in coming weeks.

In a separate letter to Mr Snow, New York senator Chuck Schumer and others said US ports were “the most vulnerable targets for terrorist attack”. They questioned whether DP World, which is owned and controlled by Dubai, should be allowed to take over P&O, charging that Dubai was a “key transfer point” for shipments of nuclear components bound for Iran, North Korea and Libya.

The deal, which has already been given regulatory clearance by the White House, gives DP World container terminals at six ports on the east coast of the US, including New York and New Jersey.

Although the Department of Homeland Security is ultimately charged with cargo- screening functions, the legislators said the port facility itself was responsible for securing cargo coming in and out of the port and the hiring of security personnel.

“After the 9/11 attacks, your department complained of a lack of co-operation by the UAE and other Arab countries as the US was trying to track down Osama bin Laden’s bank accounts,” the letter stipulated.

The growing congressional backlash against the deal is likely to reignite a debate in Washington on the effectiveness of the committee on foreign investments in the US, or Cfius, an inter-agency panel that vets foreign takeovers of US assets on national security grounds.

Cfius, which is chaired by the Treasury Department, approved Dubai’s bid for P&O after reviewing it for a standard 30-day-period, although the committee could have called for the deal to be examined more thoroughly over an additional 45 days.

Stewart Baker, assistant secretary for policy in the Department of Homeland Security, said that Cfius had completed its review after it was notified last year of the pending takeover, and had concluded there was no national security basis for blocking the transaction.

He said the US government had worked cooperatively with DP World in the past as part of the global container security initiative launched by the US after the September 11 attacks.

People familiar with the deal said administration officials were yesterday briefing lawmakers on the deal to assuage their concerns.

A spokesperson for the Treasury Department said the administration would not re-open its review unless evidence emerged that DP World had given the committee false information.

Cfius came under harsh scrutiny by lawmakers last year following a failed attempt by CNOOC, the Chinese oil company, to take­over California-based Unocal. Although the deal was quashed before Cfius reviewed the transaction, the widespread opposition to the deal in Congress prompted the Treasury Department and other agencies to promise to increase transparency at Cfius by communicating more with Congress and to be more willing to conduct full investigations of deals.




Find this article at:
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/d8156740-9f3f-11da-ba48-0000779e2340,s01=1.html

[potlatch]

Haven't read this thread yet so don't know what all has been said. I read last night that NO American companys bid for this.

Also read that this has nothing to do with port security, that supposedly is still done by 'us'. I still don't like it!