Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Handing U.S. port security to UAE is terrible idea
The Columbus Dispatch ^ | 2/22/2006 | Cal Thomas

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 


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aloadofbull; basedonlies; calthomas; chickenlittlethomas; closebutnocigar; ctpat; demstrojanhorse; dimpropaganda; dncxenophobia; howlermonkeys; invasion; isolationism; misinformation; portgate; ports; portsdeal; security; silentcal; smugglers; terrorists; uae; usa
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 641-654 next last
To: KCRW
Now Cal would have Americans believe that because of the warning issued by the Australians, the American port deal should not move forward. Why is it then the Australia is issuing the warning about the UAE, yet the Australians are not the least bit concerned about this port deal????

Good post. I saw the same irony.

It's getting so we've got sharper Freepers than some some of our favorite conservative talking-heads.

121 posted on 02/25/2006 7:02:58 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
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.

If that's true then you ought to know better to be so dismissive of people's concerns. There are knowledgeable people in and out of government, far more so than your hero Tommy Franks who say there is a danger turning over port management to a Middle Eastern country. We need to hear all sides in this debate before we hand the keys over to them.

122 posted on 02/25/2006 7:05:36 PM PST by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Candor7

> Take a re-gander at the presidents state of the union address and read what he said about isolationism

Very pretty words from the president. But there's a difference between isolationism and taking prudent precautions. I keep hearing "full steam ahead!" even when some modest checks are suggested for this deal.

I would be more inclined to trust the president more if our borders were not discounted by him as much as they are. This is a post-9/11 world, as our president rightly reminds us regularly, and you'd think this would mean stronger protection against unknown elements streaming across the border every single day.


123 posted on 02/25/2006 7:06:27 PM PST by VictoryGal (Never give up, never surrender!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
Tommy Franks is a general whose good friend and Commander in Chief just happens to be the president. What do you expect him to say?

Tommy Franks is an honorable and knowledgeable.

If you want to disagree with him, fine. Name dropping certainly doesn't make an argument, even when the name is Tommy Franks.

However, to imply that he would knowingly put the safety of the country at risk, because he is a "friend" of the president is over the top.

124 posted on 02/25/2006 7:07:36 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
"We need to hear all sides in this debate before we hand the keys over to them."

No, we need to hear the facts. Your side of the debate has fabricated a non-crisis around the lie that DWP would be controlling U.S. ports.

125 posted on 02/25/2006 7:07:57 PM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
The operation of the port, including the security of the port, remains in the hands of the proper authorities.

I really don't have a tremendous deal of confidence in the continuous awareness of our own government in that regard. So I deeply distrust their ability to ferret out a trojan scheme once significant portions of overall operations have been outsourced, and questioning that portion is deemed politcally incorrect.

126 posted on 02/25/2006 7:08:07 PM PST by kcar ( Be strategic. Nothing personal. We're just being strategic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson


BTTT.


127 posted on 02/25/2006 7:09:38 PM PST by onyx (IF ONLY 10% of Muslims are radical, that's still 120 MILLION who want to kill us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
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.

Terminal operators are not privy to DHS classified information.

128 posted on 02/25/2006 7:09:44 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: kcar
"So I deeply distrust their ability to ferret out a trojan scheme once significant portions of overall operations have been outsourced..."

What percentage of these facilities are foreign managed and what percent U.S.?

129 posted on 02/25/2006 7:09:52 PM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
Hey Jackson, I heard a spot on the radio the other yesterday, NPR , an interview with the former CO of the Coast Guard.( I didn't retain his name, I was driving home in my truck at the time) NPR's liberal / socialist interviewer thought he would have the former CO saying that the Dubai/P&O deal was a security risk.

The former CO said he wasn't in the least concerned with the fact that a Dubai company was assuming the P&O leases in the various ports concerned.

The former CO simply said that the coast guard needed more personnel to do a more thorough job of assuring that the private security firms inside each leased port were doing their jobs well.

He also stated that 99% of the jobs at these leased dockage facilities were staffed by American citizens, and that the various incoming extranational shipments were checked both at the point of origin and at destination.

When the interview obviously was not going NPR's way, they thanked him and signed off before he could say anything more that revealed the truth about what a port is and how it genuinely works. At that point I decided to support our president in his sanctioning the deal

I believed the CO. I also believe that the funding needs to be made available to supply the further staff necessary to do the job in all of our ports, which I understand has been promised but remains undelivered.

BTW thank you for your service. I am sure you have some interesting stories to tell the grandchildren around the campfire, if you have any yet.

130 posted on 02/25/2006 7:10:54 PM PST by Candor7 (Into Liberal Flatulence Goes the Hope of the West)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
Your side of the debate has fabricated a non-crisis around the lie that DWP would be controlling U.S. ports.

You bet, it's all made up. 9/11, the Spain and Britain bombings, it's only in our heads. Fortunately wiser heads in the GOP will not roll over on this one, we will get hearings and maybe even an overturning of this deal you want so badly.

131 posted on 02/25/2006 7:11:50 PM PST by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
What percentage of these facilities are foreign managed and what percent U.S.?

So...if I don't know the answer, are my concerns irrational? I draw a distinction between Muslim foreign and non-Muslim foreign. Do you? I do NOT trust Muslim state-owned companies with the time of day.

132 posted on 02/25/2006 7:16:01 PM PST by kcar ( It's a mattter of trust,.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign
Tommy Franks is an honorable and knowledgeable.

And so are a lot of other people who are constantly being insulted because they don't agree with your side. Again I remind you, this is not a game, we're not talking about social security reform or the budget deficit but of handing over the keys of major ports to a country with known past terrorist ties. I respect Tommy Franks but that doesn't mean his opinion is infallible on this one.

133 posted on 02/25/2006 7:16:56 PM PST by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: BlackbirdSST

LMAO


134 posted on 02/25/2006 7:17:16 PM PST by DoughtyOne (If you don't want to be lumped in with those who commit violence in your name, take steps to end it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Candor7
I should actually thank you and the rest of the nation.

The Coast Guard was never a job for me, it was a way of life. You people paid me on top of it.

The CO is right. The USCG has almost always been under manned, under funded and over tasked. When this really started hitting hard in the late 70's our resources (and the USCG always considered it's people it's greatest resource) were getting stretched to thin and overworked to a dangerous level.

About then, under the direction of a farsighted Commandant, emphasis started shifting to working smarter, not harder. That hurt us even more. As we started getting better with more duties and less resources it only led to more reductions. But the service survived, continued to do it's duties and yes, things are starting to improve greatly.

135 posted on 02/25/2006 7:18:21 PM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest

Yes, the lie about DPW having control of our ports is made up. I'm glad you're so comfortable rallying to the cause of a lie.


136 posted on 02/25/2006 7:19:56 PM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
It is a fact that DWP will not be controlling port security. This cannot be disputed. Bringing in other events and trying to tie them to this issue is simply not relevant.

DWP will not control port security. Period.

137 posted on 02/25/2006 7:21:12 PM PST by Miss Marple (Lord, please look after Mozart Lover's and Jemian's sons and keep them strong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: kcar
"So...if I don't know the answer, are my concerns irrational?"

You're the one who commented on these facilities being outsourced. You really should find out the percentages, it will give you a lot of insight into the issue.

138 posted on 02/25/2006 7:21:21 PM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: VictoryGal
"you'd think this would mean stronger protection against unknown elements streaming across the border every single day." Doesnt the presidents record speak for itself? We have suffered no attack since 9/11 while other nations in Europe had transit facilities bombed. In Scotland last summer I joked about wearing the PLO khafiyah in Glasgow Airport, one I had just bought from a retired SAS soldier who was running an army surplus shop. He said I would be held up and likely arrested. We are no where near that in the USA because of our president's work. He has interdicted 5 attempted attacks and cut the terrorists off from their financial roots overseas. Now he wants to have a way to flood the middle east with good old US produce and goods made by US companies. We did the same in Germany just after WW II.

I say we go for it. You don't? I guess thats for you to work out. I have worked it out for myself based on history, not fear. The president was asking us not to be afraid and now I know what he meant by what he said about isolationism in his State of the Union Address.

139 posted on 02/25/2006 7:23:25 PM PST by Candor7 (Into Liberal Flatulence Goes the Hope of the West)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
There are knowledgeable people in and out of government, far more so than your hero Tommy Franks who say there is a danger turning over port management to a Middle Eastern country.

The Kuwaiti's operate Port of Newark terminal facilities.

Saudi Arabia operates stevedore functions in various U.S. ports.

Where were these so-called "knowledgeable people" when the Saudi's and the Kuwaiti's moved into our ports? Where are these so-called knowledgeable people even now?

140 posted on 02/25/2006 7:23:50 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 641-654 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson