Will it become portgate?

This deal bypassed the legal 45 day investigation.

Am I the only person that's getting sick to death of every political controversy being dubbed (something)-Gate?

Will it Become "Portgate?"

Only if those opposed keep resisting the facts.

Now that Watergate is over 30 years ago, can I vote that we stop adding the word "gate" to every perceived or potential political scandal?

Here is a collection of items and facts about Dubai and the UAE that I have put together. Link to each at end of article.

NOTE the section about the law that I emphasized. I read it as not a 45 day review, but completed in 45 days. Big Difference. Am I wrong here? Need to get the facts out.

THE LAW – CFIUS:
Another sign of the protectionism at work here is the call to give Congress a larger say in vetting such transactions. But the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS), the interagency panel that reviewed the DP World contract, is an executive branch function precisely to avoid the parochial concerns that dominate Congress. If Congress ran CFIUS, every Member would have a chance to interfere with every private foreign investment.
In fact, under the CFIUS statute Congress is barred from being involved in the review process until it is over, and the political meddling we see with respect to the DP World deal is the reason. Such confidentiality is important because companies are often asked to disclose proprietary information to the government. This also explains why the Bush Administration didn't brief Congress up and down about the deal in advance.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110008015

The Statute. Section 5021 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 amended Section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 to provide authority to the President to suspend or prohibit any foreign acquisition, merger or takeover of a U.S. corporation that is determined to threaten the national security of the United States. The President can exercise this authority under section 721 (also known as the "Exon-Florio provision") to block a foreign acquisition of a U.S. corporation only if he finds:
(1) there is credible evidence that the foreign entity exercising control might take action that threatens national security, and
(2) the provisions of law, other than the International Emergency Economic Powers Act do not provide adequate and appropriate authority to protect the national security.

To assist in making this determination, Exon-Florio provides for the President or his designee to receive written notice of an acquisition, merger or takeover of a U.S. corporation by a foreign entity. Once CFIUS has received a complete notification, it begins a thorough review of the notified transaction. In some cases, it is necessary to undertake an extended review or "investigation." An investigation, if necessary, must begin no later than 30 days after receipt of a notice. Any investigation is required to end within 45 days.

Information provided by companies contemplating a transaction subject to Exon-Florio is held confidential and is not made public, except in the case of an administrative or judicial action or proceeding. Nothing in section 721 shall be construed to prevent disclosure to either House of Congress or to any duly authorized committee or subcommittee of the Congress.
http://www.treasury.gov/offices/international-affairs/exon-florio/index.html

UAE and pre-9/11 Taliban:

United Arab Emirates Decision to Sever Ties with Taliban

The U.S. welcomes the decision of the United Arab Emirates to sever relations with the Taliban because of its continued refusal to turn over Usama bin Laden. The UAE’s action today is fully consistent with United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1267 and 1333, and constitutes further evidence that the international community of nations speaks with one voice on this issue. Usama bin Laden and his terrorist associates threaten not just one state or several states, but rather civilization itself. We hope today’s move by the UAE will lead the Taliban to recognize that it must immediately remand Usama bin Laden to the appropriate authorities so that he may be arrested and effectively brought to justice.

Richard Boucher, Spokesman Washington, DC, September 22, 2001”

To be sure, the UAE had a spotty record on terrorism pre-9/11. It was one of only three governments to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate rulers of Afghanistan, and two of the 9/11 hijackers hailed from the UAE. However, the UAE's cooperation has greatly improved since then. The State Department has described UAE as providing "staunch assistance and cooperation" against terrorism, and the UAE has been involved in several key al-Qaeda arrests. Interestingly, one of these arrests, of Abdul Rahim al-Nashiri, directly enhanced maritime security. Al-Nashiri was one of the men charged in the 2000 USS Cole attack, and as Richard Miniter notes in his book Shadow War, he was so vital to bin Laden's attacks at sea that Arab intelligence officers jokingly referred to him as the "al-Qaeda admiral."
http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2006/02/the_dp_world_po.html

Following 9/11 the United States undertook urgent measures to enhance US seaport security. This led to the so-called Container Security Initiative (CSI) which promotes the inspection and securing of containers at their point of origin and while in transit to the United States. It's true that the UAE became the first Middle East country to sign on to this CSI program, but that didn’t occur until December 2004, about two years after the Initiative was started ”…

Critics note that the UAE was one of three countries that recognized the Taliban. And, UAE based charities and financial facilities have been implicated knowingly, or unwittingly in financing various Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups. The UAE was used as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the 9/11 attacks. The critics also point out that lax controls at UAE ports made them a convenient transfer point for shipments of nuclear components smuggled to Iran, North Korea and Libya.
http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2006/02/dp_world_expand.html

Faced with accusations of terrorist funding and support, a number of Middle East governments have taken a tough stance against terrorist funding and money laundering since 9/11. The Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency (SAMA) has instructed Saudi banks to establish a supervisory committee to closely monitor terrorist links and coordinate efforts to freeze the assets of identified individuals and entities. The government has also created an institutional framework for combating money-laundering, and SAMA is working closely with law enforcement agencies. Other specific actions include auditing all charitable groups to ensure there are no links to suspected groups, and developing plans with the finance ministers and central bank governors of the G-20 to root out and freeze terrorist assets worldwide.

The UAE has also been under pressure to tighten the financial noose around money laundering and terrorist financing activities since it was revealed that some of the hijackers involved in 9/11 had moved cash through UAE companies. In response, the Emirates passed an anti-money laundering law and imposed tight restrictions on transfers in January 2002, and implemented the 40 recommendations of the FATF on combating money laundering.
http://www.bankerme.com/bme/2003/nov/regulation.asp

Port Security:

First of all, after this sale, DP World won't suddenly become our only recourse for port security. There is in fact a layered set of security checks that operates independent of DP World. These checks include the following:

1. A 24-hour Manifest Rule that requires sea carriers to provide U.S. Customs with detailed descriptions of the contents of containers bound for the U.S. a full 24 hours before the container is loaded onto a vessel. This allows U.S. Customs officers to assess risks and scan the containers in overseas ports before they enter the U.S.

2. The Coast Guard remains responsible for port security regardless of who manages the ports, while Customs and Border Protection maintains responsibility for container and cargo security.

3. As containers enter the U.S., officers on the ground screen the containers using imaging and radiation detection technology.

These security procedures will not change even if DP World takes over port operations. Whether or not one believes that these security procedures are sufficient, the fact remains that we won't be left any worse off.

Just as the security procedures and those who are charged with carrying them out will remain the same, we are unlikely to witness a change in the composition of the workforce at the six ports that DP World would run. Robert Palaima, the president of Delaware River Stevedores, pointed out that when the British company P&O Steamship Navigation Co. ran the ports, there wasn't a sudden infusion of British workers. He doesn't expect that this will change once the partner is based in Dubai rather than Britain.
http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2006/02/the_dp_world_po.html

In May 2005, Dubai signed an agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy to prevent nuclear materials from passing through its ports. It also installed radiation-detecting equipment — evidence of a commitment to invest in technology. In October 2005, the UAE Central Bank directed banks and financial institutions in the country to tighten their internal systems and controls in their fight against money laundering and terrorist financing.
http://nationalreview.com/ijaz/ijaz200602221412.asp

Expansions:

The P and O deal, which is to be finalized on March 2, creates the second biggest global ports and container group in terms of traffic. It comes a little over a year after Dubai Ports International (DPI) acquired the international terminal business of US-based CSX World Terminals (CSXWT) for $1.15bn.
DPI merged last September with Dubai Ports Authority (DPA) to form DP World, which under the CSXWT purchase manages the development of South Korea's Pusan Newport. DP World now operates ports in the Middle East, Asia, Europe, Australia and Latin America. It took Dubai Holding, a state holding firm which runs mega projects in the emirate, just three months after it was set up in October 2004 to announce a major foreign venture through its international investment arm, Dubai International Capital. The company struck a deal in January last year to acquire a one-billion-dollar stake in DaimlerChrysler, making it the third largest shareholder in the German-US auto giant.

Two months later, Dubai International Capital announced it was buying Tussauds Group, which runs Madame Tussauds wax museum and the London Eye among other sites, from London-based Charterhouse Capital Partners for 800m pounds ($1.4bn). Through its Dubai Investment Group, Dubai Holding moved on to Manhattan last September to purchase the Essex House Hotel, which is now operated by Jumeirah Group, its hospitality arm. At home, Jumeirah Group boasts the world's only seven-star hotel, the sail-shaped Burj Al-Arab. It has plans to own or manage 40 luxury hotels at home and abroad.
http://www.kuwaittimes.net/analysis.asp?dismode=article&artid=1818303718

A free trade agreement between the UAE and Australia is likely to be concluded by the middle of this year, said a top Australian official.
The UAE is also likely to conclude another free trade agreement (FTA) with the United States, while the GCC is expected to sign its own FTA with the European Union in May.
"Both countries held the last round of talks in Australia in December and the next round is expected to be held in the UAE next month," Peter Linford, Australian Consul General and Senior Trade Commissioner, told Gulf News.
"If everything works out well, we hope to conclude the FTA by the middle of the current year. The move will help our bilateral trade to expand."
The UAE and Australia began negotiations on the FTA a year ago. Australia could become the UAE's third free trade partner following the United States and Singapore.
http://archive.gulfnews.com/business/Commerce/10020325.html

there is no freedom of the press and Internet access is restricted.

Sounds like China.

In fact, under the CFIUS statute Congress is barred from being involved in the review process until it is over, and the political meddling we see with respect to the DP World deal is the reason. Such confidentiality is important because companies are often asked to disclose proprietary information to the government. This also explains why the Bush Administration didn't brief Congress up and down about the deal in advance.

The law said a 45 day investigation which the deal bypassed. It didn't say a 45 day investigation by congress!

Again, the law says:

Once CFIUS has received a complete notification, it begins a thorough review of the notified transaction. In some cases, it is necessary to undertake an extended review or "investigation." An investigation, if necessary, must begin no later than 30 days after receipt of a notice. Any investigation is required to end within 45 days..

The Deal didn't bypass Anything. The INVESTIGATION, IF REQUIRED, must be completed within 45 days. Where am I wrong?

The Deal didn't bypass Anything. The INVESTIGATION, IF REQUIRED, must be completed within 45 days. Where am I wrong?

Okay! But don't you think a 45 day investigation is required in a transaction of this nature?

Chuckie Schumer and company knew about this deal as did many others months ago and did nothing. They knew this would be the perfect event to make Republicans play right into their hands, which is what they are doing and making the country think that Dems are on top of National security. Schumer could have made noise and lined up his offense to the deal long ago and Singapore would have got the deal but he decided to play this one out and boy are the conservative talking heads making an *ss of themselves now.

Will it become portgate?

Only if Hillary can avoid discussion of all the perks her husband gave the Red Chinese government's shipping company, COSCO.

EXCELLENT suggestion. May I second this?

Chuckie Schumer and company knew about this deal as did many others months ago and did nothing

I agree. Peter King should have known about it, too, since he heads the House's Homeland Security Committee.

There are two explanations for King's and Schumer's proclaimed surprise at the deal --
King and Schumer are lying that they didn't know the state-run firms PSA (Singapore) and DPW (UAE) were bidding on P&O
King and Schumer don't bother to read the papers to keep up to date on international business events that affect the US.

I'd like to know where they were when Clinton was giving away the "shipping" shop to the folks who gave him illegal campaign contributions, the Red Chinese government.

An investigation, if necessary, must begin no later than 30 days after receipt of a notice. Any investigation is required to end within 45 days.

Within 45 days of what date? The date the investigation begins? Or the date the notice is received?

I imagine they mean the investigation cannot last more than 45 days.

The Statute. Section 5021 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 amended Section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 to provide authority to the President to suspend or prohibit any foreign acquisition, merger or takeover of a U.S. corporation that is determined to threaten the national security of the United States. Herein lies the problem with the law. No US Corporation is involved in this. This is a UAE company taking over a British company. The law here is mute.

The firm, Dubai Ports World, is owned by the United Arab Emirates, an Islamic regime that is now being regularly described in the media as a U.S. ally. But the democracy we're fighting for in Iraq does not exist in the UAE.

Nor did it in the Soviet Union during WWII. Wartime makes for some strange bedfellows. Any Freepers out there ever have a hard time finding a drink or anything else "Western" in Dubai?

Am I the only person that's getting sick to death of every political controversy being dubbed (something)-Gate?

No. I think it's annoying as hell.

"Investigation" is a defined term (an "extended review"). Thus, the first sentence pertains to the initial review, and the language you placed in bold pertains to the "investigation," which must commence "no later than 30 days after receipt of a notice."

In the present case, the initial 30-day review began on Dec. 16, 2005, when DP World filed its formal notice with Treasury, and ended on Jan. 17, 2006, when CFIUS reported its non-objection to the deal.

The administration position is that the 45-day "investigation" (or extended review) period was not triggered because there were no national security implications.

Nonsense. We can bring back "Water" and call it "Waterfrontgate." It'll be 1974 all over again. I can feel the brain cells dying as we speak.

The law here is mute.

You mean "moot", and no it is not. CFIUS has jurisdiction to review foreign acquisitions that involve the transfer of domestic infrastructure and contractual possessory rights. CFIUS didn't conduct some kind of recreational or rogue review of this transaction.

The notion that the US has no means to review a transaction between foreign entities that effects the transfer of domestic infrastructure, and to halt such a transfer if necessary, is absurd. Its called sovereignty.