"At the end of the day, we should not risk being perceived as forgiving or rewarding the people who played a role in the slaughter of 3,000 of our countrymen."
So why then do we support Germany? Everything people have accused the UAE of in regards to 9/11 has been done by Germany as well. Yet Lufansa flies airplanes into this country every day hundreds of times. The planes are not searched before or after arrival, neither are the crews. The air force does not meet planes prior to landing to check papers.
"There is a difference between Great Britain and the UAE, many differences in fact, and we should not be instructed otherwise."
here's a difference. Not one of the 9/11 hijackers grew up and became radical within the UAE. Not one! The only one who was born in the UAE became radical in Germany. Yet in britain 4 men grew up and became radical within the country and then blew themselves up in July.
"that a Zogby poll taken in October of 2005 found that over 70 percent of those in the UAE have an unfavorable opinion of the United States? Are such opinions the fuel that drove the UAE's policies toward al Qaeda prior to 9/11? That is not something that can be asked about Great Britain.'
Pure racism. 80% of people in the UAE are not truely citizens, which is a very good arguement against a full democratic government (imagine if people from Iran could just flood the country to vote), but rather are expats from other countries. And what policies did the UAE have towards Al-Qaeda? None, they helped our counterterrorism before 9/11, ask richard clarke. They wanted to play the Taliban off of Iran because they hate Iran. The UAE has more literate women then men, they have more female college students then male. Media is not officially censored but rather censors themselves. Despite freedom house in 1997 an article was printed that criticized the president. Was the author taken away and executed? No. Did the author get tortured? No. Was the author even arrested? No. Was the news company fined? no. Rather the only punishment was an admonishment of the company by the government, something that happens here all the time.
We are in Iraq now and that is and will be the center of our mideast policy. Our overwhelming concern will be toward our troops in Iraq and it's future.
He's right on this stuff. The UAE is not free.
Posted on 02/24/2006 10:28:57 AM PST by knightshadow
The port of public opinion...
Protests about the planned transfer of management for several U.S. seaports to a state-owned company in the United Arab Emirates are fraught with almost as much confusion as fervor -- which explains why the current division within the political parties is almost as stark as the one between them. When Karl Rove, Jimmy Carter and The Los Angeles Times line up on one side of an issue, while Senators Bill Frist, Chuck Schumer and The New York Times line up on the other, something is seriously amiss.
Of course, the first casualty of political conquest is the truth, which is not to say that both sides don't feel genuine concern. In an effort to elucidate the issue, let us first distinguish between fact and fiction.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a multi-agency panel that evaluates foreign financial interests in the U.S. with national-security implications, has approved the transfer of management of some port terminals (not the sale of these ports) in New York, Newark, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, New Orleans and Houston. The transfer is from a British owned company, Peninsula and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, to Dubai Ports World, which is headquartered in the UAE. What this means, essentially, is that American managers and longshoremen will now get their checks cut by DPW instead of P&O. In other words, DPW will become one of many operators in these ports.
This does not put DPW in a position to act as an agent for al-Qa'ida, delivering weapons of mass destruction to their terror-cell operatives in the U.S., as has been suggested by some print and Internet tabloids. Direct responsibility for port security is shared by the Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, and state and local port authorities. Here it should also be noted that port-management priorities are wholly subordinate to port-security priorities. Of course, port-security operations, particularly those pertaining to interdiction of WMD, are augmented by the entire asset base of the U.S. military, its intelligence community and its law enforcement agencies.
Despite the rancor, the U.S. does not outsource the protection of our critical national-security infrastructure.
Approval of the DPW proposal underwent three months of interagency review. According to Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, "This review definitely was not cursory and it definitely was not casual. Rather, it was in depth and comprehensive." This is the same review that management companies based in China, Denmark, Japan, Singapore and Taiwan underwent before being authorized to manage terminals in the port of Los Angeles. We might add, China now manages some terminals on both ends of the Panama Canal.
Foreign investment in the U.S., including port management, is nothing new.
As for the assertion that President George Bush should have known about the proposal, Frances Townsend, his senior advisor for Homeland Security, counters, "Rarely do these [reviews] wind up on the president's desk and that's only after there has been an investigation and there is some disagreement. This didn't get there because none of the agencies who reviewed it had any objection."
The public remonstration in this case is the result of a volatile combination of legitimate sentiments: a fundamental distrust of Islamic countries combined with a concern about the potential for terrorist exploitation of our busy shipping ports.
The distrust is warranted, particularly in the wake of 9/11. Not only were two of the hijackers from the UAE, but 11 of the Saudi hijackers traveled to the U.S. from Dubai, and $250,000 used to bankroll the 9/11 attacks was wired through Dubai banks. There were ties between Islamist emirs in the UAE and Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, and the UAE recognized the Taliban government.
On the latter point, however, our intel sources indicate those ties enabled the CIA to confirm the location of bin Laden twice in 1999, but the Clinton administration declined to eliminate him. Bill Clinton has floated several excuses for why he did not act on this intelligence -- which all sank.
Further, Pakistani nuclear proliferator Abdul Qadeer Khan testified that a UAE company assisted him with the transfer of nuclear technology to Iran. However, as we noted two years ago, our sources indicate that Khan was either a CIA operative or a dupe and that the UAE cooperated fully with surveillance of Khan's contacts in Dubai.
Thus, if we want to punish the UAE because it has airports and banks, or because it has cooperated with CIA clandestine counter-proliferation efforts, so be it. There is, however, no suggestion of evidence that the UAE government had any knowledge, much less complicity, with the al-Qa'ida cell responsible for the 9/11 attacks, or any other attack on U.S. interests or personnel. On the contrary, there is considerable evidence that the UAE, along with Kuwait and now Iraq, is a critical ally in the region.
Indeed, since 9/11 the UAE government has provided significant intelligence and staging support in the war against Jihadistan. They have actively participated in the pursuit of al-Qa'ida terrorists. In 2002, for example, UAE officials arrested and turned over to U.S. officials Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who conspired in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and masterminded the attack on the USS Cole in 2000. In 2004, UAE officials arrested Qari Saifullah Akhtar, who trained thousands of al-Qa'ida operatives around the world. He was returned to U.S. interrogators in Pakistan.
As for Dubai Ports World, it already provides support for U.S. Navy ships in Jebel Ali and Fujairah, which accommodates more U.S. Navy ships than any other international port. DPW is also the primary support contractor for U.S. Air Force assets at Al Dhafra Air Base.
Rising above the din, the real issue is this: America's seaports constitute one of many big holes in our border security, regardless of who manages the terminals. Despite the port security that exists both stateside and in the ports of origin, there is no guarantee that WMD won't be smuggled into the U.S. in one of the thousands of cargo containers that land on our shores each and every day.
As we have noted before, when al-Qa'ida has mated the right nuclear core with the right weapons hardware (something they may have already succeeded in doing), getting that weapon into the U.S. will not be that difficult, regardless of who is managing and securing entry points. The harsh reality is that there simply is no way to secure U.S. borders, with even a modest degree of confidence, against importation of nuclear WMD hardware the size of a footlocker, and a fissile core the size of an orange.
This reality accounts for the Bush Doctrine of Pre-emption -- take the fight to the enemy and endeavor to wage war on their turf, not ours. It is a reality for which pre-emption is our only option -- our only chance of preventing a catastrophic attack on our nation.
This is certainly not to suggest that we adopt the French border-security model -- one in which we throw up our hands and run away. Indeed, we need to be vigilant about territorial security. However, allowing a UAE company to manage some port terminals does not constitute a surrender from such vigilance.
For the public, there may be some psychological solace in the assertion that preventing DPW from managing port terminals is tantamount to securing our destiny -- but it is a false sense of security.
The public confusion, media hysterics and, consequently, opportunistic political posturing and demagoguery have all but completely obscured the facts pertaining to our relationship with the UAE and its shipping conglomerate, DPW. The Democrats have used this issue to leapfrog to the right of Republicans on national security, and some Republicans responded quickly by adopting the same line on DPW. Unfortunately, both are doing so at the peril of our national security.
Not only has President Bush declared, "The UAE has been a valuable partner in fighting the war on terror," but has even threatened to veto any legislation to undo this deal. As he has yet to use his veto for any legislation (to our utter dismay, given some great opportunities), threatening a veto in this case can only mean that the consequences of derailing our relationship with the UAE constitute a grave threat to our national security.
Most likely, a compromise on UAE/DPW between the White House and Republican congressional leaders was brokered prior to public objections from Sen. Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert. If that compromise is anything other than a "technical delay" in approving this transaction, we believe U.S. national security will suffer the consequences.
Feel safer now?
Bill Bennet is a classic AH.
Some facts on the ports.
Under the process conducted by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), officials carefully reviewed the national security issues raised by the transaction and its effect on our national security. Twelve Federal agencies and the government’s counterterrorism experts closely and carefully reviewed the transaction to make certain it posed no threat to national security.
DP World, a UAE-based commercial entity, is purchasing the U.S. subsidiary of the London-based P&O Steam Navigation Company. The announcement of DP World’s bid for P&O was made in November 2005, and the news was widely reported in the press and international financial trade publications. The formal CFIUS process was set into motion in December, and the Federal government conducted a thorough review to ensure that port security would in no way be compromised by the deal.
The President has made clear that he stands firmly behind the decision to allow the DP World transaction to move forward. Preventing this transaction by a reputable company to go forward after careful review would send a terrible signal to friends and allies that investments in the United States from certain parts of the world are not welcome.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Is Always In Charge Of The Nation’s Port Security, Not The Private Company That Operates Facilities Within The Ports. Nothing will change with this transaction. DHS, along with the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and other Federal agencies, sets the standards for port security and ensures that all port facility owners and operators comply with these standards.
The Transaction Is Not About Port Security Or Even Port Ownership, But Only About Operations In Port. DP World will not manage port security, nor will it own any ports. DP World would take on the functions now performed by the British firm P&O – basically the off- and on-loading of cargo. Employees will still have to be U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. No private company currently manages any U.S. port. Rather, private companies such as P&O and DP World simply manage and operate individual terminals within ports.
DP World Has Played By The Rules, Has Cooperated With The United States, And Is From A Country That Is A Close Ally In the War on Terror. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has been a solid partner in the War on Terror. The UAE has been extremely cooperative on counter-terrorism and counter-proliferation and has provided considerable support to U.S. forces in the Gulf and to the governments and people of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The UAE Is An Established Partner In Protecting America's Ports. Dubai was the first Middle Eastern entity to join the Container Security Initiative (CSI) – a multinational program to protect global trade from terrorism. Dubai was also the first Middle Eastern entity to join the Department of Energy's Megaports Initiative, a program aimed at stopping illicit shipments of nuclear and other radioactive material.
Port Security Begins Abroad. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) created the CSI to enable CBP to inspect 100% of high-risk containers at foreign seaports before they are loaded onboard vessels destined for the United States. Dubai was the first Middle Eastern entity to join CSI. Cooperation with Dubai has been outstanding and a model for other operations.
DP World currently manages 19 container terminals and has operations in 14 countries. The United States government has a strong working relationship with DP World.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013223.php
It's amazing to see how many cool aid drinkers are here in this forum. The issue that most likely 90% of employees of this arab company are muslims, is of no importance? Never mind the management og the company. It is the employees, you have to worry about, many of whom will have allegence to Islam and its imams.
Just pinging the rest of the Whine All the Time Choir to come over and repeat lies does NOT magically change them into facts.
It's truly instructive to read the snarky personal comments about Bill Bennett by FReepers who, to paraphrase Larry Holmes, couldn't carry his jockstrap. Compare Bennett's intellect, success, impact and CV to the snide jerks who attack him here and they fade to nothing in his shadow.
This article claims that the al queda wrote a letter in 2002 saying that they infiltrated UAE security:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_8216.shtml
It is crass to no end on the part of DPW to even consider trying to gain a further commercial foothold in our country while we are still actively prosecuting the War on Terror.
Two of their citizens were directly responsible for starting the thing in the first place.
Not only that, but their government was publicly complicit in the attack before the fact. The UAE also actively engaged in aiding-and-abetting the enemy attackers shortly afterwards.
Paraphrased POV from an earlier thread:
The Taliban governed (can argue rightly or not, but they DID govern) Afghanistan at the time, and openly harbored Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda publicly stated their intent to conduct terrorist operations on American soil. They were believed by our government to constitute a serious enough threat for us to be engaged covert operations to stop them.
This information was widely enough known at the time of the attack, that neither the Taliban, nor the government of the UAE can claim ignorance of the fact that Al Qaeda meant to commit terrorist acts on US soil.
By harboring Al Qaeda previous to the attack, the Taliban gave our nation justification for declaring war.
Anyone who knowingly gave money to Al Qaeda prior to the attack, should be subject to prosecution by the laws of this nation. We can't enforce that on their soil, but we should be able to on our own (national sovereignty).
If anyone who ever knowingly donated money sets foot in our country, they should be prosecuted for murder in the first degree (paying for a killing is just as bad as committing the act).
By recognizing the Taliban, and continuing diplomatic operations with them, after the threat was made common-knowledge demonstrates a high degree of complicity (encouragement, but not active participation) in the attack, itself.
It also shows clear anti-American sentiment on the part of their government at the time of the attack.
The failure of the UAE government to immedeately surrender all financial records related to the financial support for Al Qaeda upon request of our government contitutes obstruction of justice, as well as aiding and abetting a capital crime (murder in the first) on their government's part. This shows further anti-American sentiment, and active cooperation with the enemy after the fact.
That we didn't declare war on them right along with the Taliban shows an amazing amount of restraint and a very forgiving attitude on the part of our country and the Bush administration, IMHO.
The fact that they even considered trying to turn further profit from us while we're still at war over the 9/11 attack is just-plain shameless.
The fact that they've not voluntarily rescinded the contract after formal complaints were filed by both the State of New York, and the State of New Jersey speaks volumes; both to the character of DPW, their contemptuous attitude towards our citizens, disrespect of our sovereignty, and an obvious lack of full contrition for the part their nation played in the attack.
Honestly. What were they thinking?
Did they think no-one was going to notice this and point it out to some media jock, and embarass Bush in the process?
How can this not upset Bush, or even the staunchest of his supporters here?
Does anyone think they would be nearly as cavalier about the deal if the attack had taken place in Abu Dhabi, instead of New York, and we were trying to gain an 'in' on their turf?
This deal needs to go away, and fast, before it causes permanent damage to the party. Avoids a nasty fight on Capitol Hill in an election year. Why do the DUmmies dirty-work for them?
This is obviously bigger than some here were initially claiming.
The diplomatic solution is the best way out.