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
But I was talking about being outsourced, specifically to a state-run company of an Islamic nation? Could that be a key distinction in the arena of trust.
Yes. Do you know the percentage of these facilities that are already under the management of foreign owners?
You're being obtuse. Reas the refined question.
This Middle Eastern country is going to have management responsibilities that will give them enormous information on the ins and outs of port operations. They're not spending 7 billion to sit around and watch tv or for us to send them the bill.
So before we go ahead and do that let's have a full congressional investigation, if they're as squeaky clean as you keep implying then there's nothing to worry about and your beloved deal will go through.
No American company is involved in this. A British company who was doing the work sold its business to Dubai. This is not outsourcing.
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.
You must have me mistaken for somebody else. Read my post again. I specifically made the point that Tommy Franks was honarable and good but I also made the point that just because he says something, it doesn't mean that it's true.
Your response was -- off.
I remind you that this is not a game. You should try to read each post objectively.
The hilarious thing is, some of the longshoremen walking the picket line complaining about a UAE owner get their paychecks from Arabs already.
Couldn't agree more.
Yes. And thank God nobody is suggesting we do such a thing.
Are you concerned that the management of these facilities is being outsourced?
LOL! You are too funny...when your whole argument is over the "control" of the ports.
Where do you say that in post #124? If it was there I would have responded to it and agreed.
Changing from a British company (a key ally - and with a company that's not state-owned) to a company owned by an Islamic state, is a qulaitiative difference in kind that I distrust, reject, urge my Congress critters to reject, and plan to vote accordingly.
To an Islamic nation. Yes, very.
Would you like to try again? Perhaps construct a sentence that is actually comprehensible.
DP World will not be taking over ports. The Ports are owned by the US.
DP World will be acquiring the leases to 22 Terminals at various ports. Each port has multiple terminals and each terminal is leased to us and foreign companies to operate.
Currently, 80% of all terminals are operated by foreign companies, including the Chinese.
For the record, this deal will not affect security in any manner and all of my Customs co-workers agree.
DP World will not have access to classified information about port security.
U.S. port security procedures should never rely on the secrecy of unclassified information.
Are you aware that Australia has already allowed them a contract?
Are you aware that this firm currently provides port services for our critical logistics to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that they provide services to the largest collection of U.S. Navy ships outside of the U.S.?
Right... I am glad you have that confidence. I am sure when our ship in Yemen had the crap blown out of it, it came with the same reassurance from the Yemeni government gave our US navy that their ports are safe.
If you know that a ship is going to be in a certain port at a certain time carrying certain cargo, you have just made terrorism about 1000x's more effective by killing specific people or cargo. Or the ability to take that cargo.
The world had to move to all steele containers because the longshoreman just had a shopping spree. So they controlled that by keeping the containers contents confidential to a few people... like those that run the ports.
You must have me mistaken with somebody else, I understand perfectly well what they're going to be doing. And so do you and so does everybody else but it's convenient and throws the argument in another direction if you can nitpick over how it's described. It's the oldest debating trick in the book but it's a little too transparent in your case.
Thanks MI. It seems that no matter how many times this gets stated it is ignored and another thread started built around DPW taking over control of our ports.
They can't get past the MSM buzz words.
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.