Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Chertoff Defends Review of Ports Takeover
Yahoo News ^ | FEB.19, 2006 | WILL LESTER

Posted on 02/19/2006 8:44:08 AM PST by radar101

Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff on Sunday defended the government's security review of an Arab company given permission to take over operations at six major U.S. ports.

"We make sure there are assurances in place, in general, sufficient to satisfy us that the deal is appropriate from a national security standpoint," Chertoff said on ABC's "This Week."

London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., was bought last week by Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business from the United Arab Emirates. Peninsular and Oriental runs major commercial operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

U.S. lawmakers from both parties are questioning the sale, approved by the Bush administration, as a possible risk to national security.

"It's unbelievably tone deaf politically at this point in our history," Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C. said on "Fox News Sunday."

"Most Americans are scratching their heads, wondering why this company from this region now," Graham said.

Added Sen. Evan Bayh (news, bio, voting record), D-Ind.: "I think we've got to look into this company. We've got to ensure ... the American people that their national security interests are going to be protected."

At least one Senate oversight hearing is planned for later this month.

"Congress is welcome to look at this and can get classified briefings," Chertoff told CNN's "Late Edition."

"We have to balance the paramount urgency of security against the fact that we still want to have a robust global trading system," he added.

Sen. Robert Menendez, who is working on legislation to prohibit companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from running port operation in the U.S., said Chertoff's comments showed him that the administration "just does not get it."

In a statement, the New Jersey Democrat said, "No matter what steps the administration claims it has secretly taken, it is an unacceptable risk to turn control of our ports over to a foreign government, particularly one with a troubling history. We cannot depend on promises a foreign government has given the administration in secret to secure our ports."

Chertoff said Dubai Ports World should not be excluded automatically from such a deal because it is based in the UAE.

Critics have cited the UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

In addition, they contend the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist.

DP World has said it intends to "maintain and, where appropriate, enhance current security arrangements." The UAE's foreign minister has described his country as an important U.S. ally in fighting terrorism.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: betrayalofourcountry; camelintent; chertoff; dhs; globalony; helptheenemy; homelandsecurity; hypocrite; theenemywithin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 181-187 next last
To: takenoprisoner
See post 44.

The quote is from the CFIUS page and Bush has the power to block this.

61 posted on 02/19/2006 9:27:55 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer
How is the Bush administration supposed to stop two NON-AMERICAN owned companies from consumating this business transaction (in which America holds no legal authority)?

So in your view, even though they're our ports, we have no say when it comes to who runs them.

Better hope bin Laden doesn't buy a controlling interest in DPW, then.

62 posted on 02/19/2006 9:30:21 AM PST by skip_intro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
Well after reading your links, and reading some on what investigations have taken place, I can see why Presidential powers have NOT been used to stop this transaction. I can see foreign companies ceasing to do business (inside of the US) over this. buchanan would be thrilled, but our economy would shrink to that of a Luxembourg.

No, what needs to be done is that if security threats occur due to this transaction, we need these 6 American ports to find new companies to run them. Contracts can be modified or canceled. This is the proper course of action, not one in which legitimate foreign investment is threatened (by the FED). That is the Cuban/Soviet model!

LLS
63 posted on 02/19/2006 9:30:36 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (Preserve America... kill terrorists... destroy dims!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Lobbyist

We should not have anybody named "Mohammed" running these ports. Has Bush lost his mind?


64 posted on 02/19/2006 9:31:04 AM PST by Mad_Tom_Rackham (A Liberal: One who demands half of your pie, because he didn't bake one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner

"The issue is whether or not our ports should be run by muslims who hate us and intend to destroy us. And this not all muslims crap won't fly anymore. We don't want any muslims claiming to be moderate BS running our ports period."


We are NOT assured that any foreign private company will not hire (your word) 'muslims' my word is terrorists either.


65 posted on 02/19/2006 9:31:53 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: radar101

Letting UAE “take over” our ports appears to be a huge mistake. But look at who is coming out on this story. Hillary, Schumer, Graham. My question is: how much of this is a real story and how much is political maneuvering?


66 posted on 02/19/2006 9:32:03 AM PST by reasonisfaith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trubluolyguy
I am trying to be polite here too.

No foreign country should be protecting our border or operating any US port. Talk about taking a risk. Chertoff ought to go. ASAP!

67 posted on 02/19/2006 9:32:06 AM PST by Rapscallion (Democrats: Once a party; now a hate group.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
It would be interesting if a “a state-owned business from the United Arab Emirates” is considered a “foreign power”.

“If” the Ports are owned by the States then our little Constitution could get in the globalists way again.

Article 1 Section 10

No state shall, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any AGREEMENT or compact with another state, or with a FOREIGN POWER, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
68 posted on 02/19/2006 9:32:48 AM PST by Marius3188
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Alaska007
Looks like another Harriet Myers debacle.

Harriet Myers wasn't in a position to nuke NY City. The Arabs desperately want to do so.

69 posted on 02/19/2006 9:33:59 AM PST by Mad_Tom_Rackham (A Liberal: One who demands half of your pie, because he didn't bake one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner

See my post #63. Who are you calling an idiot?

LLS


70 posted on 02/19/2006 9:34:01 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (Preserve America... kill terrorists... destroy dims!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

thank you


71 posted on 02/19/2006 9:34:26 AM PST by takenoprisoner (Afterall, American ports run by muslims is a good thing right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer
This is the proper course of action, not one in which legitimate foreign investment is threatened (by the FED).

You seem to have forgotten that we are at war.

During war, the course of action should be to do what is in the best interest of our National Security. Having Port contracts, and/or operations, run by a foreign country is not in our best interest.

72 posted on 02/19/2006 9:34:44 AM PST by Cagey ("Soldiers, keep by your officers. For God's sake, keep by your officers!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Rapscallion
our elected are only trying to give new methods to the 'enemy at the gates' play book game plan.
73 posted on 02/19/2006 9:38:35 AM PST by no-to-illegals
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: radar101

Chertoff needs to learn 2 words he will be hearing more of in the future...

ALLAHU AKBAR!


74 posted on 02/19/2006 9:38:43 AM PST by navyguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trubluolyguy

I remember when he was introduced as the new head of HS, my first thought was ... "Are they kidding with this apppointment?"


75 posted on 02/19/2006 9:38:53 AM PST by Let's Roll ( "Congressmen who ... undermine the military ... should be arrested, exiled or hanged" - A. Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: skip_intro

Please read my post #63. Why do you assume I am in favor of this newly merged company running port operations?

BTW, NO ONE is taking over OUR ports! Become informed. You are on the right side of the argument (concerned about security), but you need to KNOW the facts to argue correctly. Contracts may need to be cancelled, and an AMERICAN company chosen to run port operations. What we have no business doing, is stopping what appears to be a legitimate International business deal. We just DO NOT have to do business with them, if security is threatened.

LLS


76 posted on 02/19/2006 9:40:21 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (Preserve America... kill terrorists... destroy dims!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Rapscallion

"No foreign country should be protecting our border or operating any US port".

The BRITISH have been running these ports for many years. Why is it NOW that you find yourself concerned about "foreign" companies running our ports (dims and the media attention)? It has been this way for many years.

NO, I am NOT in favor of letting this newly merged company continue to run these ports. We need to find out more about the actual situation first. Then if needed, we cancel contracts and reissue to American companies.

LLS


77 posted on 02/19/2006 9:45:00 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (Preserve America... kill terrorists... destroy dims!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: eskimo

...or he is on the wrong side?

I'll say it.....everything he has done and not done indicates that he has some other interest with a greater priority that the well-being of America.


78 posted on 02/19/2006 9:46:25 AM PST by Vn_survivor_67-68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Let's Roll
ever notice when we do roll....the first thing yelled at this blog is 'you're trash'
79 posted on 02/19/2006 9:47:10 AM PST by no-to-illegals
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Cagey
I know this! After thorough review, if we find security concerns with this DUTCH/UAE company merger, we should reissue these contracts to American companies.

What we should NOT do, is inject the US into what appears to be a legitimate INTERNATIONAL business deal. We DO NOT have to do business with them if we decide that it is NOT in OUR best interest. This is the way the "free market" system should work.

LLS
80 posted on 02/19/2006 9:50:39 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (Preserve America... kill terrorists... destroy dims!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 181-187 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson