Posted on 03/10/2006 2:21:04 PM PST by Stellar Dendrite
The U.S. House of Representatives will forge ahead with a vote on blocking an Arab-owned company from managing U.S. ports, to ensure the firm sheds its U.S. holdings as promised, a leadership spokesman said on Friday.
The Republican-run House's refusal to back away from the showdown vote was another blow to President George W. Bush, who suffered a stinging defeat on Thursday when Dubai Ports World said it intended to back out of the deal his administration had approved.
Reverberations from the political earthquake continued on Friday. The United Arab Emirates broke off talks on a free trade pact with the United States, although a spokeswoman for the U.S. Trade Representative's office said delays are common.
Bush said he was concerned the opposition sent a worrying message to Middle East allies.
"In order to win the war on terror, we have got to strengthen our relationships and friendships with moderate Arab countries in the Middle East," Bush told newspaper editors.
State-owned Dubai Ports World surrendered to unrelenting criticism from both Republicans and Democrats in giving up the management of some terminals at six major U.S. ports.
The UAE company said it would transfer the ports to a U.S. entity at the behest of Dubai's ruler, to allay concerns the deal posed a threat to American national security. Details of the transfer were not outlined.
The White House had hoped the announcement would resolve the unprecedented crisis between Bush and a Congress run by his own party in open revolt.
But Ron Bonjean, spokesman for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, said the House vote on a provision to bar the deal would go ahead on Wednesday or Thursday anyway.
"It's a smart move to keep it (the legislation) in there, in case the Dubai thing doesn't work out," he told Reuters.
NATIONAL SECURITY
The outlook for a Senate vote was less clear. Senate Republican leaders have been trying to avoid one in the near future. Deal critic Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, wants more information from the White House.
"If things are as they appear, this is a great victory for national security. But make no mistake, we are going to scrutinize this deal with a fine-tooth comb to make sure the separation between American port operators and Dubai Ports World is complete and security is tight as a drum," he said.
Dubai Ports Chairman Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem, asked if the firm would sell the U.S. port management rights, told Reuters: "All this is being worked out by our parties in the States."
But David Hamod, president of the National U.S.-Arab Chamber of Commerce, said it would be hard to find a U.S. company to step in.
"The advantage that the overseas company has is economies of scale. They're doing this on a global level and so it will be very difficult to find a U.S. company in this business large enough to take over the operations," Hamod said.
He also said his group was hearing calls for retribution, including keeping Americans out of Arab markets. "But it's a tiny minority of people who are arguing that," he said.
Bush, who had vowed to veto efforts to block the deal, praised the UAE as a committed ally in the war on terrorism.
"I'm concerned about a broader message this issue could send to our friends and allies around the world, particularly in the Middle East," Bush said.
Treasury Secretary John Snow said his department's lawyers were in contact with DP World about its intentions. He also said the political furor was an isolated case, as he tried to limit damage to the U.S. free-trade image.
Larry Sabato, a political science professor at the University of Virginia, said congressional Republicans are running away from Bush this election year.
"In a way, the port deal was a godsend to them," Sabato said. "It allowed them to put a lot of daylight between themselves and a very unpopular president."
A new poll Friday registered another low of 37 percent in Bush's approval rating.
(Additional reporting by Thomas Ferraro, Doug Palmer and Tim Ahmann)
http://frontpage.brightok.net/~sempai/billofattainder
I wonder if Blackstone covers any of this ground.
The asset seizure angle is a different question altogether, and is really more of a Fourth Amendment issue than anything else.
>"I want to know what is going to happen to our troops?"<
-Nothing is going to happen to our troops. The UAE will continue to sell us their oil, port berths, unload our ships, and we will continue to trade 8+ billion dollars per year with them.
One of the great ironies about the Constitutional prohibition against bills of attainder was that the establishment of the U.S. as a nation probably could not have been accomplished without these kinds of nebulous "legal" proceedings (albeit unofficial legal proceedings). The process under which many British loyalists throughout the Thirteen Colonies were stripped of their property and fled to Canada or back to Britain was a classic case of "bills of attainder" at work.
Which brings up a very important point . . . It makes no sense to establish a formal rule of law in a society without first cleansing the society of every member who has given clear indications that he/she does not recognize the formal rule of law that is being established.
Agreed, and a good point for "the other end" of the spectrum of analysis. Congress (Duncan Hunter, for example) justify preferential treatment against UAE on the basis of non-cooperation in the WOT and nuclear non-proliferation. We have all sorts of preferential treatment for nation-companies, without resort to the "bill of attainder" as the device to invalidate legislation.
My only point is that there is a big fat grey area - if this was easily a bill of attainder, DPW would argue that in court. They aren't.
Is that a fact, jack?
I don't find it the least bit amusing and more, I find it quite disgusting and nauseating that you do.
Is what a fact, jane?
"Why should a foreign entity have power over the supplies those troops require to do their jobs when they load and unload our ships?"
Are you unaware of the current use of their ports by our military?
Source?
**Good heavens -- I can't imagine what James Madison would think of what has become of our U.S. Congress these days.**
Excellent post concerning the lunacy of Congress. When the MSM jumped full speed on the bandwagon of not allowing the port deal to go through, it became obvious there was something very wrong going on behind the scenes.
From the get go, this was nothing but pure politics, by the likes of Hillary and the rest of her ilk. Frist and the republicans fell head first into a trap set by the demos and the MSM. I hope the damage will not be too severe.
Ah, I see I misspelled posted. Sure, I see how that might throw you.
Sounds like there's a crystal ball hiding somewhere.
What, can't find it?
With a big crack in it so the picture is not clear.
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.