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
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.
The U.S. is not handing port security over to the UAE.
This is a bold face lie and you know it.
"Handing U.S. port security to UAE is terrible idea"
Couldn't agree more.
OK, it's your turn. I'll sit this round out and watch.
Not handing over security, but handing over operational control. You're pointing out a technicality.
I couldn't get past the stupid headline. And I won't try to explain it to you, as people probably already have.
This is a bold face lie and you know it.
Take it up with Cal Thomas, I just posted his article, that's all.
Another flat out lie.
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.
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.
A shame that Cal Thomas didn't research the material first...he doesn't usually make such stupid mistakes.
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.
Cal, Cal, Cal. Stop following the heard, turn Sean Hannity off, and do some research into the facts.
I'm a bit surprised by this too. Usually Cal is a voice of reason.
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.
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.
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.