Posted on 02/20/2006 7:28:25 AM PST by standingfirm
WASHINGTON — Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is defending the Bush administration's review of an international shipping deal two days after one company in the Port of Miami sued to prevent an Arab-owned firm from taking over port operations.
Meanwhile, lawmakers also are considering legislation to stop foreign-owned companies from running U.S. ports.
Chertoff on Sunday said the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, had carefully reviewed the Dubai Ports World purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which runs commercial operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
"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 told ABC's "This Week."
That doesn't sit well with Miami firm Continental Stevedoring & Terminals Inc., a subsidiary of Ellery & Company Inc. Representatives from that company asked a judge to block the takeover of P&O,
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
"They're not my buddies"
You are content to vent your spleen over a report that is being spun by two union-thug-supported Democrats who love the terrorists' "civil rights" more than they love their fellow Americans, but you don't even bat an eyelash over the activites of union thugs that help enable terrorist attacks (news flash: union thugs who steal cargo can be blackmailed, and that theft is endemic on the waterfront), and are content to take the word of a Wahhabist-influenced (heck, Wahhabist-CONTROLLED, given that the Wahhabists prevented a hostile takeover) television network over people who actually know what the hell they're talking about.
You're right. They're not your buddies. You're just their shill.
You might want to look into anger management classes, you definitely appear to have a problem. I don't care what the democrats have to say about this and their opinion has no effect on mine. I'm against this deal because it stinks and if my democrat Senators from NY happen to agree then it's a first.
Btw I'd point out GOP politicians in the NYC area like Peter King are against this as well. Maybe it has to do with the fact buildings in the city were blown up and they don't want it to happen again.
its "free trade" at all costs and i cant stand it
"You might want to look into anger management classes, you definitely appear to have a problem."
Yeah, I have a problem. I have a problem with people who claim to be "conservative" and then proceed to rattle of Schumer/Clinton talking/deception points in perfect lockstep.
"Btw I'd point out GOP politicians in the NYC area like Peter King are against this as well."
I thought the NYGOP was a bunch of liberal RINOs, who are not to be trusted, now they're suddenly the saviors of true conservatism.
Man, Orwell called it on the numbers almost 60 years ago: "Oceania was at war with Eurasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia."
You're like MNJohnnie except an angrier one. Party before country at all costs, even when those policies are more liberal than the liberals could ever hope of getting passed.
Feel free to take your game and go somewhere else if it all upsets you because conservatives are not about to give their country up to globalists without a fight.
"...namely, look the other way while the union boss and his friends stole cargo), that's a fairly accurate description of what they do. "
And that alone (your personal knowledge) doesn't give you pause to wonder what a gaggle of muslims working our ports will do?
How about a good ole boy wink wink nod nod look the other way as a terrorist grabs a carton of smuggled rpgs?
You betcha. And you are on the wrong side. I'd bet a million to one that you wouldnt post your real name and address so when the first terror strike comes courtesy of DP World running our ports...so we can, you know, vent our anger toward an enabler?
Personally, I favor globalization. I just think putting a company, which is wholly owned by some rich Arabian sheikhs, with a history of supporting terrorism, in charge of something vital to US security is a really, really, really stupid idea.
Free Trade with third world countries isn't working out very well for us and neither are the open borders that goes along with it. You can't have one without the other since businesses need the cheap imported labor to compete. This deal is also consistent with globalism and we're probably going to be seeing more of it unless it gets stopped now.
You seem to be taking the "its all a lie" position. I'll ask you the same thing I've asked all the other "its a lie" advocates (who, by the way, have never responded). Do you deny:
-- That DP World, a Dubai state owned company, will be acquiring ownership rights over existing North American terminal infrastructure and operations at approximately 31 container, general cargo, and passenger terminals in New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, New Orleans, and Vancouver, complete with extant leasehold, stevedoring, wharfage, and seaway rights;
-- That DP World will also own half of Norfolk's CP&O Ports Virginia, the largest stevedoring service in Hampton Roads;
-- That DP World itself has been quoted as stating that "We intend to maintain and, where appropriate, enhance current security arrangements," making the claim that DP World will have no responsibility for security a rather strange little piece of spin;
-- That, indeed, operations cannot be segregated from security, and to pretend that the two can be segregated is pure fantasy;
-- That the base technology related to terminal security was principally the product of ITO's efforts (the terminal operator that preceded P&O Ports), and that this technology will pass with the sale to DP World;
-- That Dubai and Dubai-based companies and banking institutions have an ignoble and disturbingly direct history of ties to 9/11 and terrorist funding and transit; and
-- That (curiously, given the importance of the decision to national security) the CFIUS did not conduct a 45-day investigation on top of the initial 30-day review that it usually gives to foreign purchases of U.S. businesses?
And one further question. Is it your position that the "union thug" problem you seem obsessed with will be solved by bringing to pass all of the above?
"Port Operators aren't responsible for security in the sense of border protection . . ."
Actually, they are. In very similar ways, given their responsibility for filing security plans, securing vulnerable areas, and vetting personnel.
"Port operators have ZERO authority. Port operators are subordinate to the US Federal Gov't (via CBP, USDA, FDA) and to the Ocean Carrier who issued the Bill of Lading."
Subordinate, yes. Zero authority, ridiculously false.
"Port operators have NOTHING to do with cargo release, cargo inspection, cargo commmodities, cargo security . . . "
Patently false.
"The reason why a Port Operator can't "deceive" Customs is because there is absolutely no reason for US Customs to consult with the port about any given shipment. Why? because the parties involved with the cargo have no involvement with the Port."
Under proposed regulations, and indeed under current regulations, ridiculously false.
"It is not the job of a Port Operator to protect the seaport in this context."
From the context of your comment, I could not tell what "context" you were talking about. To the extent you were making a general comment, however, that the operator has no obligation to protect the seaport, you could not be more wrong.
You may have worked in the industry as you claim, but if I were you, I'd stop lecturing people, and stop pretending that you have some kind of "inside" scoop on the business. Most of the stuff you're disseminating is embarrasingly wrong.
ping
"Yeah, I have a problem. I have a problem with people who claim to be "conservative" and then proceed to rattle of Schumer/Clinton talking/deception points in perfect lockstep. "
Congratulations to beholdapalehorse since he is in good company. Tonight Jimmy Carter said he sees no problem with this deal...
All of us opposed can now rest in peace cause Jimmy and palehorse says it's OK.
:) that clinches it for me.
There are alot of Republicans who are standing side by side with Schumer. This is not a Democrat/Republican issue.
The great thing about all of this.
Democrats are now saying that it makes sense to profile angry Muslims from Arab countries.
Is that fact lost on everyone here at FR?
I'm noticing this too. On DU they are bashing Bush as well (I am too).
However, are they going to realize that there's a security risk that goes along with these countries? Perhaps a real threat??
No such luck, they're just hoping for Bush to get bashed. No real sense to it.
DP World already operates the ports in China and Hong Hong that load the crap we buy from the ChiComs. If the UAE was infiltrated by jihadists bent on nuking the US, we would be unable to stop anyway, partially because of our insatiable appetite for cheap crap from China.
IF you think you can do a better job, give your resume to your hero, chuckie schumer, to recommend you.
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.