Handing U.S. port security to UAE is terrible idea

The Columbus Dispatch ^ | 2/22/2006 | Cal Thomas

[SwordofTruth]

On Sunday, the Australian government issued the following alert to its citizens: "We advise you to exercise a high degree of caution in the United Arab Emirates because of the high threat of terrorist attack. We continue to receive reports that terrorists are planning attacks against Western interests in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Commercial and public areas frequented by foreigners are possible terrorist targets."

This is not the kind of country that the USA should be doing business with at all, much less letting them take control of operations at 22 USA ports.

[COEXERJ145]

Handing U.S. port security to UAE is terrible idea

The U.S. is not handing port security over to the UAE.

This is a bold face lie and you know it.

[nj26]

"Handing U.S. port security to UAE is terrible idea"

Couldn't agree more.

[Cornpone]

"This is not the kind of country that the USA should be doing business with at all, much less letting them take control of operations at 22 USA ports."

OK, it's your turn. I'll sit this round out and watch.

[nj26]

Not handing over security, but handing over operational control. You're pointing out a technicality.

[cabojoe]

I couldn't get past the stupid headline. And I won't try to explain it to you, as people probably already have.

[SwordofTruth]

The U.S. is not handing port security over to the UAE.

This is a bold face lie and you know it.

Take it up with Cal Thomas, I just posted his article, that's all.

[COEXERJ145]

Not handing over security, but handing over operational control.

Another flat out lie.

[USNBandit]

The obvious question: If it is dangerous for an Australian to travel to the UAE because of terrorism, isn’t it even more dangerous for a company owned by the UAE to own the rights to American ports where terror might be directly, or indirectly, imported?

The obvious answer: No.

If you use the same logic Thomas does then the UAE should block us from using their ports for our Navy. The U.S. is an obvious terrorist target so why should the UAE do business with us.

The United Kingdom has been attacked and is threatened everyday. Using Thomas' logic we should have pulled the port contract from them a long time ago.

Using the Cal Thomas yardstick we should have cut Israel off a long time ago.

[Cboldt]

What's he supposed to do, change the title of the article as posted?

Kind of a cheap shot to say "This is a bold face lie and you know it." to the fellow who posted the column, as if he composed the title.

[CWOJackson]

A shame that Cal Thomas didn't research the material first...he doesn't usually make such stupid mistakes.

[jazusamo]

I respect Cal Thomas but believe he's wrong on this. It wouldn't turn over security to the UAE. The Coast Guard and Port Security would still be responsible.

[CWOJackson]

"Congress must stop this sale of American ports to foreign interests..."

Cal, Cal, Cal. Stop following the heard, turn Sean Hannity off, and do some research into the facts.

[tsmith130]

I'm a bit surprised by this too. Usually Cal is a voice of reason.

[jonrick46]

Of course the UAE is being threatened. I would guarantee that Iran is kicking up the threats. Does Iran want the United States to tighten up our friendship. No. Iran would like the UAE to kick us out so we lose our military advantage with the Air Force base and the U.S.S. Kittyhawk port facility.

The Iranians might also be behind the latest attempt to hit a major oil field in Saudi Arabia. And, there is talk that they are also behind the Mosque bombings in Iraq.

We need to shut up and stand behind the United Arab Emirates.

[CWOJackson]

I think a lot of pundits are getting intellectually lazy. They're allowing the MSM to conduct their research for them.

I know that after this episode, I am going to be looking at the opinions of a whole lot of people I previously respected with a very large dose of salt.

[jazusamo]

"Iran would like the UAE to kick us out so we lose our military advantage with the Air Force base and the U.S.S. Kittyhawk port facility."

Correct, as well as Syria and the terrorist faction of all ME countries. Us having those bases are a thorn in the side of terrorists.

[hedgetrimmer]

Port security is managed by the US treasury department, same group that approved the deal with the UAE. The have set up something called C-TPAT.

C-TPAT, or “Customs - Trade Partnership Against Terrorism” or C-TPAT, 'partners' qualify if they do a self-assessment. How's that for maintaining port security?

U.S. Customs has engaged the assistance of the trade community in the war against terrorism. C-TPAT is a joint government-business partnership where companies agree to improve security in their supply chains in return for "fast lane" border crossings and other important incentives. See www.customs.gov

This programs has security hole written all over it. Since customs is doing such a great job on our border, its no wonder they been promoted to manage port security. /sarc

Since this treasury department manages the national resource sellouts, we should all be very happy that they are helping US Customs out with security issues. Right?

[Donald Meaker]

The port master is a US government employee. The people who unload the ships are US citizens, union longshoremen. Security is the job of the Coast Guard and Customs.

The same people who do the job now, will stay, and do the job for the new company. What do they do? When queried, they bid time and money to unload ships. Where that port is selected by the ship/cargo owner, they then hire longshoremen to unload the ship, and reload it with US goods.

When new people are to be assigned, Homeland Security has 45 days to vet the new person, and right of refusal.

I don't have a problem with it.