Replies

Every newspaper article which actually covers the facts of the deal, or interviews port workers about security, concludes that there is no security issue involved in this deal.

Sunday's Post had a wonderful article about how the entire issue is political, not at all about national security (right next to an article about how politically bad Bush played this).

Even the Coast Guard story, when you actually READ it, was pro-ports-deal. For two weeks opponents claimed that the Bush administration hadn't considered the security issues, that they therefore needed to re-review.

Then the Coast Guard information comes out, which shows that the Coast Guard RAISED the very questions that were supposedly ignored. Of course, opponents turned on a dime and said -- "Look, the Coast Guard had the same concerns we do". Then the rest of the story appeared, explaining that the Coast Guard went through the questions, and answered each one, and concluded there was no security issue. Oops....

The opponents also claimed that nobody would ever even THINK the deal was OK (Like Hannity). Now Hannity is grumbling about how he's not that concerned anymore since "all he ever wanted was another 45-day review".

Opponents argued that we just went along with this deal without even ASKING for anything from DP World -- another sign we didn't really consider it.

But the Sunday Washington Post article tells us that the review process included asking for, and receiving, a number of written agreements from DP World for this sale -- agreements that put legal binding on "understandings" we had with the previous company, and therefore make us MORE secure, not less.

Hannity was the perfect case study for how the opponents handled the case. Each day he had some NEW objection to the deal which he hadn't even KNOWN about the previous day, but which now was the explanation for why he had opposed the deal.

For example, yesterday it was how some holding company owned by the people who own DP World enforces the anti-Israel boycott in their "free ship zone" port in the Middle East. Hey, this is a real issue, and we should object to it -- but it has NOTHING to do with DP World, or any ports operated by DP World. Nor was it why he originally said he opposed the deal.

But when you come out so strongly against something, you have to find an excuse later.

Recently, the "Golden Dome" mosque in Samarra, Iraq was reduced to rubble by bombers. It turns out that Iraqi Security men who were charged with guarding the mosque collaborated with terrorists to allow the bombing to take place.

Until someone proves to me that a motivated Islamofascist working for Dubai Ports would have no possible way of breaching security to allow bombs or other dangerous terrorist tools into the U.S., I will oppose this deal.

When I see a constant drumbeat in the media in favor of this deal I start to see the public relations machinery working to convince the reasonably suspicious among us that "There's nothing to see here. Stop asking questions. Just move along."

Every newspaper article which actually covers the facts of the deal, or interviews port workers about security, concludes that there is no security issue involved in this deal.

At least the security issue is being discussed and assessed. There is another and perhaps in the long run more important issue about this business deal that is being totally ignored. This is the fact that the UAE company is "state owned." This fact by itself should disqualify this company from doing business in our country. We are supposed to have free competition in our system, something that cannot exist when governments own businesses. The merging of the roles of government and business is illegitimate in our political and economic system. Free enterprise and competition are seen as necessary to maintain not only our economic freedoms but our political and civil liberties as well. We have absolutely no interest as a free and self-governing people in rewarding and encouraging the business model of this UAE "firm" -- government ownership -- that has more in common with mercantilism than with free market principles.

It seems to me that the lack of discussion of this subject indicates that either our elected officials and media elites do not understand the requirements for maintaining a free and competitive economy as well as our individual freedoms or they have already given up on it. Perhaps they never believed in it to begin with. For them the free market jargon is only rhetoric they roll out to squash some political opponent or issue. I am beginning to wonder if the brave new globalist world we are being marched toward by our elites will consist of ceding our rights to self-government and our economic freedoms to autocratic government/corporations and international mega-businesses around the world whose purposes extend only to gaining and maintaining power and to profit and who are not accountable to anyone.

This debate involves an argument over what business model will prevail in our brave new globalist world: a mercantilist merging of business and government or a free market, competitive system that the is the basis of our society's freedoms. We should at least demand observance of our free market economic principles here in our own country and should be advocating these principles to the rest of the world. I don't think that taking this position in defense of our American way of life is too much to ask of our President and Congress.

"But the Sunday Washington Post article tells us that the review process included asking for, and receiving, a number of written agreements from DP World for this sale -- agreements that put legal binding on "understandings" we had with the previous company, and therefore make us MORE secure, not less.

That's odd. We now have directly contradictory reports about what the argreements were between the administration and DP World. I haven't seen the Washington Post article you reference (perhaps you could post its content), but a previous article stated:

"Under a secretive agreement with the administration, a company in the United Arab Emirates promised to cooperate with U.S. investigations as a condition of its takeover of operations at six major American ports . . .
The U.S. government chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.
Under the deal, the government asked Dubai Ports to operate American seaports with existing U.S. managers "to the extent possible." The company promised to take "all reasonable steps" to assist the Homeland Security Department.
The administration required Dubai Ports to designate an executive to handle requests from the U.S. government, but it did not specify this person's citizenship.
It said Dubai Ports must retain paperwork "in the normal course of business" but did not specify a time period or require corporate records to be housed in the United States. Outside experts said stricter provisions are routine in other industries.
Foreign communications companies with American customers are commonly required to store business records in the United States. A senior U.S. official said the Bush administration considers shipping manifests less sensitive. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the confidential nature of the agreement."

Some immediate questions pop up:

Retention of paperwork relating to "the normal course of business" will be retained in Dubai. Why? This paperwork after all pertains to container contract payments and container content, shipper, and receiver information; to financial interests in DP World; to general cargo, container, and passenger manifests and bills of lading; etc. And these have no security ramifications? Since when?

Shipping manifests are said to be "less sensitive". Less sensitive than what? And if they have suddenly become "less sensitive," what's the point of the customs CIS program and the proposed CVSR program?

"Other routine restrictions" are not being imposed. What other routine restrictions, and why?

I fail to see the logic behind lowering the security bar for DP World, rather than heightening it.