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 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 641-654 next last
To: hedgetrimmer; CWOJackson; Howlin; nopardons; Texasforever

Hedgetrimmer continuously references this:

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/commercial_enforcement/ctpat/


421 posted on 02/25/2006 9:46:25 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 409 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
You write that about EVERY SINGLE topic and on EVERY SINGLE THREAD you post too.

Clearly, this is an obsession for you. GET HELP!

422 posted on 02/25/2006 9:47:15 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

YOUR POSTS! LOL


423 posted on 02/25/2006 9:47:40 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: ashtanga
WRONG COUNTRY for those words.

Before you make yourself look even more foolish, go read up on the UAE.

424 posted on 02/25/2006 9:49:05 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 369 | View Replies]

To: cabojoe

LOL!


425 posted on 02/25/2006 9:49:22 PM PST by Howlin ("Quick, he's bleeding! Is there a <strike>doctor</strike> reporter in the house?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 411 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Well, regardless of her using the word "Congressional," you should be embarassed if after this week you still didn't know that it had been thoroughly vetted, which IS what you indicated.

You know this starts to get a little petty after a while and makes no sense. I'm perfectly aware of the so-called vetting CFIUS did and it's a big difference from congressional. They're two different branches of government and what the whole fighting is about. Those who claim Congress already agreed to the deal when they didn't are the ones who should be embarrassed.

426 posted on 02/25/2006 9:49:53 PM PST by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 413 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest

You were given the link................go read it!


427 posted on 02/25/2006 9:49:53 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

so you have to know that NO ports have been sold, nor are any of our ports up for sale.

I cannot believe people are still repeating that lie as fact.





I have to strongly disagree.

http://www.winecommune.com/lot.cfm/wine/Warre---Vintage---1977-Vintage-Port/lotID/1005178.html


428 posted on 02/25/2006 9:49:55 PM PST by durasell (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: Howlin


It's ALL they have. That lie. It's been debunked so many times, I am sick to death of reposting the facts, the sources, and the respective links to the said sources.


429 posted on 02/25/2006 9:50:16 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 420 | View Replies]

To: durasell

Since you're said too much, if you disappear, should I come looking? :-)


430 posted on 02/25/2006 9:50:30 PM PST by Howlin ("Quick, he's bleeding! Is there a <strike>doctor</strike> reporter in the house?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
You were given the link................go read it!

Excuse me, a link to what? You said a secret congressional committee agreed to this deal last November when they clearly they did not unless you'd like to prove me wrong.

431 posted on 02/25/2006 9:51:54 PM PST by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter
When you "LEASE" something, you don't OWN it and you said OWN!
432 posted on 02/25/2006 9:52:07 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 374 | View Replies]

To: Chena

If you listened to El Rushbo at all last week, you'd not be confused about what I said.

I can't say that I'm happy 'bout all of it, but the fact is that globalism is a fact. So are millions of people who choose to work for $0.25/hr to make tennis shoes that disenfranchised blacks purchase for $125.00

I meant no insult by my comment, and in fact I thought my poetic-license was cute.


433 posted on 02/25/2006 9:52:41 PM PST by raygun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: nopardons

FYI

The United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) is a destination country for women trafficked primarily from South, Southeast, and East Asia, the former Soviet Union, Iran and other Middle Eastern countries, and East Africa, for the purpose of sexual exploitation. A far smaller number of men, women, and teenage children were trafficked to the U.A.E. to work as forced laborers. Some South Asian and East African boys were trafficked into the country and forced to work as camel jockeys. Some were sold by their parents to traffickers, and others were brought into the U.A.E. by their parents. A large number of foreign women were lured into the U.A.E. under false pretenses and subsequently forced into sexual servitude, primarily by criminals of their own countries. Personal observations by U.S. Government officials and video and photographic evidence indicated the continued use of trafficked children as camel jockeys. There were instances of child camel jockey victims who were reportedly starved to make them light, abused physically and sexually, denied education and health care, and subjected to harsh living and working conditions. Some boys as young as 6 months old were reportedly kidnapped or sold to traffickers and raised to become camel jockeys. Some were injured seriously during races and training sessions, and one child died after being trampled by the camel he was riding. Some victims trafficked for labor exploitation endured harsh living and working conditions and were subjected to debt bondage, passport withholding, and physical and sexual abuse.

The U.A.E. Government does not collect statistics on persons trafficked into the country, making it difficult to assess its efforts to combat the problem. Widely varying reports, mostly from NGOs, international organizations, and source countries, estimated the number of trafficking victims in the U.A.E. to be from a few thousand to tens of thousands. Regarding foreign child camel jockeys, the U.A.E. Government estimated there were from 1,200 to 2,700 such children in the U.A.E., while a respected Pakistani human rights NGO active in the U.A.E. estimated 5,000 to 6,000. The U.A.E. Government has taken several steps that may lead to potentially positive outcomes, such as requiring children from source countries to have their own passports, and collaborating with UNICEF and source-country governments to develop a plan for documenting and safely repatriating all underage camel jockeys.

The Government of the U.A.E. does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking and is not making significant efforts to do so. Despite sustained engagement from the U.S. Government, NGOs, and international organizations over the last two years, the U.A.E. Government has failed to take significant action to address its trafficking problems and to protect victims. The U.A.E. Government needs to enact and enforce a comprehensive trafficking law that criminalizes all forms of trafficking and provides for protection of trafficking victims. The government should also institute systematic screening measures to identify trafficking victims among the thousands of foreign women arrested and deported each year for involvement in prostitution. The government should take immediate steps to rescue and care for the many foreign children trafficked to the U.A.E. as camel jockeys, repatriating them through responsible channels if appropriate. The government should also take much stronger steps to investigate, prosecute, and convict those responsible for trafficking these children to the U.A.E.


434 posted on 02/25/2006 9:52:45 PM PST by hedgetrimmer ("I'm a millionaire thanks to the WTO and "free trade" system--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
It's not about the stipulations of what CFIUS can or cannot do, it was whether Congress itself was directly involved in the decision-making process and they weren't as was claimed.

We said it was a misstatement, but you just are hell bent on making a big deal out of it.

But they will be shortly when they most likely overturn the deal.

Well, when you're wrong, you're wrong; they can't overturn it. The president can't even stop it.

And in case you haven't noticed, the tide is turning and they will NOT even talk about overturning it.

They have been lied to and they took the bait, something you seem to be a participant in.

435 posted on 02/25/2006 9:52:50 PM PST by Howlin ("Quick, he's bleeding! Is there a <strike>doctor</strike> reporter in the house?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
You said a secret congressional committee agreed to this deal last November when they clearly they did not unless you'd like to prove me wrong.

SHE MADE A MISTAKE; GIVE IT A REST

It wasn't a CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE.

436 posted on 02/25/2006 9:54:53 PM PST by Howlin ("Quick, he's bleeding! Is there a <strike>doctor</strike> reporter in the house?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 431 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Honestly, aren't you surprised God didn't strike her dead when she started carping about the UAE considering what she gave China?

Actually, I'm not surprised.

When did Hillary give China? Was it a replacement pattern I hope?

437 posted on 02/25/2006 9:55:06 PM PST by logician2u
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
Those who claim Congress already agreed to the deal when they didn't are the ones who should be embarrassed.

You're making a fool out of yourself.

438 posted on 02/25/2006 9:56:12 PM PST by Howlin ("Quick, he's bleeding! Is there a <strike>doctor</strike> reporter in the house?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
But they will be shortly when they most likely overturn the deal.

You appear somewhat reasonable so I will ask you a serious question. If, as you appear to believe as do I, Congress led by Republicans overturn the deal, how will the UAE react? This is a very big deal. I have yet to hear a military leader active or retired that is in favor of slapping the UAE in the face. I have a lot of experience in the ME and I can tell you that if this deal is overturned the UAE will have NO choice but to kick the military out of the region. The insult would be too great not to retaliate.

439 posted on 02/25/2006 9:56:16 PM PST by Texasforever (I have neither been there nor done that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies]

To: durasell

I could use a good drink about now; I'm thinking of scuppuernong wine though.


440 posted on 02/25/2006 9:57:15 PM PST by Howlin ("Quick, he's bleeding! Is there a <strike>doctor</strike> reporter in the house?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 428 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 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