Arab Co., White House Had Secret Agreement

1d08c5bfc6d0@news.ap.org The Bush administration secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. It chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.

As part of the $6.8 billion purchase, state-owned Dubai Ports World agreed to reveal records on demand about "foreign operational direction" of its business at U.S. ports, the documents said. Those records broadly include details about the design, maintenance or operation of ports and equipment.

The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.

"They're not lax but they're not draconian," said James Lewis, a former U.S. official who worked on such agreements. If officials had predicted the firestorm of criticism over the deal, Lewis said, "they might have made them sound harder."

The conditions involving the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. were detailed in U.S. documents marked "confidential." Such records are regularly guarded as trade secrets, and it is highly unusual for them to be made public.

The concessions _ described previously by the Homeland Security Department as unprecedented among maritime companies _ reflect the close relationship between the United States and the United Arab Emirates.

The revelations about the negotiated conditions came as the White House acknowledged President Bush was unaware of the pending sale until the deal had already been approved by his administration.

Bush on Tuesday brushed aside objections by leaders in the Senate and House. He pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement, but some lawmakers said they still were determined to capsize it.

Dubai Port's top American executive, chief operating officer Edward H. Bilkey, said the company will do whatever the Bush administration asks to enhance shipping security and ensure the sale goes through. Bilkey said Wednesday he will work in Washington to persuade skeptical lawmakers they should endorse the deal; Senate oversight hearings already are scheduled.

"We're disappointed," Bikley told the AP in an interview. "We're going to do our best to persuade them that they jumped the gun. The UAE is a very solid friend, as President Bush has said."

Under the deal, the government asked Dubai Ports to operate American seaports with existing U.S. managers "to the extent possible." It promised to take "all reasonable steps" to assist the Homeland Security Department, and it pledged to continue participating in security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials.

The administration required Dubai Ports to designate an executive to handle requests from the U.S. government, but it did not specify this person's citizenship.

It said Dubai Ports must retain paperwork "in the normal course of business" but did not specify a time period or require corporate records to be housed in the United States. Outside experts familiar with such agreements said such provisions are routine in other cases.

It's a question about the very huge area of trust, to entrust a leader to be leading with our security in mind. The border insecurity, the illegal alien unremedied problem (11-13 million and growing, if not more, at this point, in the country and Bush's 'solution' is to offer them a "Guest Worker" status and other incentives to remain here and to entice even more to arrive here)...the ongoing statements about border security being managed well while actual observations and experiences by law enforcement on and in border areas tells us otherwise, and much more...

All these things add up to a growing mistrust if not an opinion of unreliability or even untrustworthiness on the actual, nitty gritty details of "security" -- if we're so concerned about the "feelings" and "resentments" of places like Mexico and UAE and elsewhere that the nation is held to their accountability while those concerns by Americans are not heeded...

All these things add up to and have resulted in a growing disbelief in the credibility of the statements about security and related coming out of the Bush Administration. Miers' nomination and the current ICE head appointment have done a great deal, also, to reduce the confidence level among Republicans as to expectation of improvement or responsiveness.

Combined with the a number of other thins, but primarily, there is increasing lack of security in the intentions for security...and this UAE deal that sanctions, for lack of a better word, a nation known to fellowship WITH terrorists and to commisserate with terrorist ideology and Muslim rule, to be blunt, this is upsetting and rightfully concerning.

The entire field of national security is the "relationship" between the border concerns and this UAE Port Deal.

All President Bush would have to do, to a great degree, is explain himself more and more often and prior to these mega-influencing issues. But he doesn't do that and then chastises voters for even asking him to.

O.K. I recognize that not all of us has a penchant for public speech and seeks disclosure, some even very uncomfortable with sharing much if at all. I can, and do, respect that.

But these are huge issues. They affect the very lives of Americans. I know they do mine. We have no nation without national security and Islam is most definitely motivated on a course that seeks to eradicate most, if not all, of Western culture and certainly Jews and Christians (and Hindus, and...). Their entire course of ideology is based upon not only their demise inorder to reach their concept of an afterlife, but also to bring about the demise of others not of their ideology inorder to do that very thing.

End spiel about that.

The significant thing is that "Sharia law" as finance process and plan of the UAE -- their plan, their goal -- is inconsistent with the West.

And, our nation is founded on laws. The very nature of our capitalist representational government is that we are a country of laws. The illegal alien problem and the failed border security problem defy that founding, cornerstsone principle of the U.S. People who indulge it, even tolerate it, or worse, participate in it are literally declaring an disregard for the very founding principle of the country.

There are many, many Americans who think as I do. This Port Deal is literally a "ping" to terrorists and disorder, from a Western perspective, just as are the problematic border security/illegal alien population issues.

DoNotDivide, besides being a newbie, you are either a foaming fanatic Bush hater, or a Troll posing as a foaming fanatic Bush hater.

You mentioned earlier you can't tell the difference between here or DU.

What a coincidence, I can't tell the difference between your posts and the ones on DU.

FWIW, you have done a slendid job of following the Troll gamebook of hijacking a thread - immediately attack the knowledgable long term members, then shout down anyone else who responds, followed by speed posting, insisting you know more about the subject than anyone else, while offering almost no facts whatsoever....

Are you a short seller in your spare time?

I've run across thousands of your ilk on Raging Bull, Silicon Invester and the like, and you fit the profile just a little too well.

It's disruptive, though not as much as you'd like. It's mostly just boring, really.

Anyone who doesn't understand mohammedans simply doesn't listen to what they say. I'm not talking about so-called extremists. I'm talking about mainstream. They are quite open about what they believe.

God.

What many of the knee-jerkers forget is that many of us have read the damn Koran and we KNOW what Islam is about. We don't need to be told by the likes of you.

What YOU are forgetting is that President Bush MUST, and I reiterate MUST walk a fine line, because we do have allies in that region. Iraq, Afghanistan, the UAE, but let's just sh*t all over them for a temporary orgasm. If we lose those allies and bases (and possible bases) don't let me hear YOU bitching about losing the WOT. Stop being so shortsighted. Iran is still on the radar, don't forget that either. But yeah, turn down a bid that does NOT compromise security just to scratch your balls, thank God you are not President.

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.