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
Cowbell. How quaint. Did you dig that out of your bull-pucky pile?
I make it a point to hand out accolades, when they are well deserved. You deserved the BRAVO, hence you got one. :-)
Facts matter a VERY great deal. Sadly, far too many people don't appear to know any, nor do they want to know any. Please keep posting the facts; perhaps some here will finally take of their tinfoil blinders and ears plugs and look the facts squarely in the eye.
She need only check her FR mail.
If name calling is all you have, then you have NOTHING !
I'm sorry. Apologies. I'm old. I keep thinking we live in the America where I grew up, where nothing was impossible, like going to the moon using the equiv of a pocket calculator and slide rule for shipboard computations.
ROTFLOLPIMP......good one! :-)
You could try to put a dirty bomb in a container once the ship was underway but that would require the entire crew being in on it, it would require picking the dirty bomb up enroute without a marked loss of time, it would require the transfer to be unobserved (which is a whole other issue) and it would have one other major drawback. There is no way you could accomplish that at sea with a weapon sufficiently shielded to escape detection before it arrive in our port.
Bangor Naval Sub Base.
You may not be wearing "the uniform" anymore, but you're still serving, and I thank you. Keep on, keepin' on. :)
You know I would normally laugh at their antics, but trying to hide behind national security to pursue their agenda is very revealing of their personal intergrity and character.
Probably even less chance. DPW will be extraordinarily careful with their 7 billion dollar investment
Now answer the query: WHAT IS A SENSATIVE NATURAL RESOURCE?
Don't put words in my mouth. I'm still undecided on the port management issue. I AM NOT UNDECIDED ON THE SECURITY ISSUE.
Whether they are one in the same remains to be seen.
We're serving together.
The only "factoids" I need to know are the surrendering of ownership of U.S. ports to a Muslim nation which has been involved in third-party arms dealing, one that has been playing the "double-agent" game, and a country without much of a historical track record of trust with the U.S.
And to demonstrate my consistency, I also object to the COSCO, and Arabian ownership of ANY U.S. port.
Now if you want to consider that "hysteria," than I suggest you pour yourself a double with NO ice.
But, okay, what's a NATIONAL resource?
Security experts, members of Congress and government reports for years have warned that terrorists could use the world's global shipping system for attacks. They blame the vast size of the business - an estimated 9-million containers enter U.S. ports annually - and inadequate government spending on maritime security.
"It is only a matter of time before terrorists breach the superficial security measures in place to protect the ports, ships and the millions of containers that link global producers to consumers," wrote Stephen Flynn, a former Coast Guard commander and fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, in a recent article. Threats run the gamut from sinking a vessel in a busy shipping channel to taking over a cruise ship and holding passengers hostage. Experts focus particularly on one nightmare scenario: a weapon of mass destruction arriving inside a container.
***
Thats the coast guard thats supposed to be securing our ports.
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.