Posted on 02/25/2006 4:21:24 PM PST by 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."
The United States has approved a business deal that would turn over the operation of six major American ports to a company that is owned by the UAE, the very country Australians are to be wary of visiting. 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?
There have been some dumb decisions since the United States was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, including the "welcoming" of radical Muslim groups, mosques and schools that seek by their preaching and teaching to influence U.S. foreign policy and undermine the nation. But the decision to sell port operations in New York, Newark-Port Elizabeth, Baltimore, Miami, Philadelphia and New Orleans to a company owned by the UAE may be the dumbest of all.
Security experts repeatedly have said American ports are poorly protected. Each year, approximately 9 million cargo containers enter the United States through its ports. Repeated calls to improve port security have gone mostly unheeded.
In supporting the sale decision by a little-known interagency panel called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, the Bush administration dismissed security concerns. National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said the sale of the ports for $6.8 billion to Dubai Ports World was "rigorously reviewed" by the committee, which, he said, considers security threats when foreign companies seek to buy or invest in American industry. Apparently, money talked louder than common sense.
In a rare display of bipartisanship, congressional Republicans and Democrats are forging an alliance to reverse the decision. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, has announced plans for her Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs to hold hearings. Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Frank Lautenberg, DN.J., who are members of Collins’ committee, have raised concerns. New York’s Democratic senators, Charles Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton have also objected to the sale. Clinton and Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., expect to offer a bill to ban companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from acquiring U.S. port operations.
In the House, Reps. Chris Shays, R-Conn.; Mark Foley, R-Fla.; and Vito Fossella, R-N.Y., are among those who want to know more about the sale. In a House speech, Foley said, "The potential threat to our country is not imagined; it is real."
The UAE was used as a financial and operational base by some of the 9/11 hijackers. A New York Times editorial said the sale takes the Bush administration’s "laxness to a new level."
Members of Congress may wish to consider that the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components bound for Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan. The UAE was one of only three countries to recognize the Taliban as Afghanistan’s legitimate government before the U.S. invasion toppled it.
The Department of Homeland Security says it is legally impossible under Committee on Foreign Investment rules to reconsider approval of the sale without evidence the Dubai company gave false information or withheld details from U.S. officials. Congress should change that law.
Last year, Congress overwhelmingly recommended against the Bush administration granting permission to a Chinese company to purchase the U.S. oil services company UNOCAL. Six years ago, when a Chinese company took control of the Panama Canal from the United States, retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Thomas H. Moorer warned of a "nuclear Pearl Harbor."
Congress must stop this sale of American ports to foreign interests and, in an era of terrorism, prevent any more potential terrorist targets from falling into the hands of those who wish to destroy us.
Cal Thomas writes for Tribune Media Services.
cal@calthomas.com
No.
There are allies and temporary or circumstantial or provisional allies, multinational companies and state-run ones. Such distinctions could mean alot in security matters.
No I'm beginning to think you're ALWAYS on the opposite side just for the sake of arguing. This isn't a game, many people who live near these ports are terrified and for good reason. 9/11 was not in our dreams, it happened.
Tommy Franks is retired and under no obligation to speak on the CinC's behalf...
You should so some serious self reflection on that comment.
Ahem, Diana... they're old? Not to me,...lol.. they're my peers...lol.
Thomas is stuck on stupid. The title of the story is not supported in the body.
My opinion of a lot of columnists is rapidly reaching rock bottom.
My dad was a lawyer who represented teamsters and some other some unions in Baltimore. I found a book among his things: Port of Baltimore Handbook
It is very informative about the public/private cooperation between the Maryland Port Authority - a government entity who OWNS the land on which the docks, piers, cranes, warehouses, rail terminals, etc are built, and the private companies who operate terminal facilities all along the waterfront.
It was published in 1971 - ancient history - container ports were just getting going . Baltimore had nine terminals operated by more than nine different companies; the largest was Sea-Land. Remember them? Most of the others were either railways or local companies.
This is a quote:
But while the semi-autonomous agency [MPA} carries out its mandate to provide the coordination, leadership and direction needed to keep Maryland's maritime interests at the fore, the Port of Baltimore continues to rely on its inherent resources -- the steamship companies and their agents, stevedoring firms, pier operators, Maritime Exchange, tug-boat companies, line handlers and foreign freight forwarders -- the all-important private sector that has made it what it is today. In the best American tradition, the Maryland Port Authority, as an arm of the government, simply provides the stimulus, encouragement and guidance.
In the margin of this paragraph my dad has written -- LABOR. I'm sure he was notating the list of so many different kinds of jobs that are ongoing in our ports.
All of these workers have a vested interest in not participating in a terror attack, and I wish the naysayers would at least try to understand that fact.
And so is Cal Thomas and many others who are raising legitimate concerns you so sarcastically dismiss. Tommy Franks is one man with an opinion who could be wrong, he's not God.
That is an excellent find. Your father recognized something a lot of people can't.
For sure.
Someone on this thread was describing how Arabic speaking stevedores would be taking over our freight-handling facilities.
Thomas claims that the ports would be turned over to DPW...that is not legitmate.
Take a re-gander at the presidents state of the union address and read what he said about isolationism:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/index.html
"In this decisive year, you and I will make choices that determine both the future and the character of our country. We will choose to act confidently in pursuing the enemies of freedom -- or retreat from our duties in the hope of an easier life. We will choose to build our prosperity by leading the world economy -- or shut ourselves off from trade and opportunity. In a complex and challenging time, the road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting -- yet it ends in danger and decline. The only way to protect our people, the only way to secure the peace, the only way to control our destiny is by our leadership -- so the United States of America will continue to lead. (Applause.) "
We need to get on with transcending isolationism and protectionism, supporting the Dubai/P&O deal is just the beginning. It is the beginning of our conquest of Islamofascism using cheap transport and the produce of America and the products of US companies.
Yeah, but by which side!
There's no reason to reflect, I've seen your posts for the last several years.
Do you live near any of these ports, yes or no? If not then please don't tell us everything's going to be ok, "trust us". One man and his career does not my loyalty or blind trust make.
LOL! For someone who jumps into the middle of a thread and starts arguing that I'm always arguing the other side? Yes, don't self reflect on that silliness...it's too funny.
"Do you live near any of these ports, yes or no?"
Yes or no? Do you train dogs or have you been trained to respond to commands? But what the heck...
Yes I do live in one of those cities. In fact, during my over 30 years in the Coast Guard, much of which was spent in port operations, port security and MDZ planning, I lived in many of those ports.
Well...then I'll listen to YOU argue politics as I fall asleep under the kitchen table. I'm an "Old Soul." Does that count? Mom always said that I was "born a 'Little Old Lady.'" :)
It's such a fond memory. I mean, how many of us had parents that would let us fall asleep under the table while they played cards, drank, smoked, argued politics, etc. These days, they'd all be hauled into Social Services for "abusing" us. *Snort*
Times have changed. Too much, sometimes, I think. Kids just don't know what they're missing these days! ;)
Good quote. It is reassuring that he knows not to be swayed by so-called polls and public opinion, but is keeping his focus on the vision and the mission.
They are taking over a portion of the management duties and will have access to valuable information regarding port operations that terrorist infiltrators could use. It is ludicrous to suggest that the potential for that happening doesn't exist, it does and I see no big deal in everyone taking a long deep breath, cooling off and letting Congress take a look at this for the next few months.
The only thing the will manage is a commercial business, nothing more. The operation of the port, including the security of the port, remains in the hands of the proper authorities. It is ludicrouse to suggest different.
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.