Chertoff Defends Review of Ports Takeover

Yahoo News ^ | FEB.19, 2006 | WILL LESTER

[radar101]

Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff on Sunday defended the government's security review of an Arab company given permission to take over operations at six major U.S. ports.

"We make sure there are assurances in place, in general, sufficient to satisfy us that the deal is appropriate from a national security standpoint," Chertoff said on ABC's "This Week."

London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., was bought last week by Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business from the United Arab Emirates. Peninsular and Oriental runs major commercial operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

U.S. lawmakers from both parties are questioning the sale, approved by the Bush administration, as a possible risk to national security.

"It's unbelievably tone deaf politically at this point in our history," Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C. said on "Fox News Sunday."

"Most Americans are scratching their heads, wondering why this company from this region now," Graham said.

Added Sen. Evan Bayh (news, bio, voting record), D-Ind.: "I think we've got to look into this company. We've got to ensure ... the American people that their national security interests are going to be protected."

At least one Senate oversight hearing is planned for later this month.

"Congress is welcome to look at this and can get classified briefings," Chertoff told CNN's "Late Edition."

"We have to balance the paramount urgency of security against the fact that we still want to have a robust global trading system," he added.

Sen. Robert Menendez, who is working on legislation to prohibit companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from running port operation in the U.S., said Chertoff's comments showed him that the administration "just does not get it."

In a statement, the New Jersey Democrat said, "No matter what steps the administration claims it has secretly taken, it is an unacceptable risk to turn control of our ports over to a foreign government, particularly one with a troubling history. We cannot depend on promises a foreign government has given the administration in secret to secure our ports."

Chertoff said Dubai Ports World should not be excluded automatically from such a deal because it is based in the UAE.

Critics have cited the UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

In addition, they contend the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist.

DP World has said it intends to "maintain and, where appropriate, enhance current security arrangements." The UAE's foreign minister has described his country as an important U.S. ally in fighting terrorism.

[DJ MacWoW]

No, what needs to be done is that if security threats occur due to this transaction, we need these 6 American ports to find new companies to run them.

You want to wait for another 9/11?

That may be good enough for you but I have a problem with this.

UAE, Palestine to set up a joint investment firm

[DJ MacWoW]

The sale to state-owned Dubai Ports World was "rigorously reviewed" by a U.S. committee that considers security threats when foreign companies seek to buy or invest in American industry, National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said.

They've only turned down one offer in 1530. I'd say their track record stinks and they're more interested in money.

Peril in Port By FRANK J. GAFFNEY JR. February 15, 2006

[DJ MacWoW]

My point was that it has been a "FOREIGN" power SUCCESSFULLY running these ports for many years.

I think the last time the Brits were after us was around 1812.

[LibLieSlayer]

I will try one LAST time to state what I think. You obviously do not understand, because you have made statements of my intent that are false.

I am neither in favor of, or ardently against this merger. I want to know the facts, the truth about investigative findings, procedures followed, and statements from all Department heads. I want independent investigative data backed up by facts, so that we can come to an agreement as to what it is we need to do.

Let me use a Rush-way of explaining this to you.

For me to believe that this merger was approved with grave concerns existing for our National Security, the following would have to be true:

1) President Bush does not care about American lives or National Security.

2) Vice President Bush does not care about American lives or National security.

3) Secretary of State Condoleza Rice does not care about American lives or National Security.

4) Attorney General Gonzales does not care about American lives or National Security.

5) The Pentagon, the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury, the FBI, the CIA, and the Department of Homeland Security have all sold out America, and have been bought "lock-stock-and barrel" by islamic fascists.

These guys can't keep the most secret National Security matters from leaking to the press, and I am supposed to believe that a "new world order", "Bush sold us out" plan is being implemented and kept secret by EVERYONE working within the Federal Government that has access to this data.

We need this investigated, and FACTS put forth to the American people, not to use this merger as demagoguery to promote third party theism!

LLS

[DJ MacWoW]

Peachy. And I'm not interested in a third party and have previously been called a Bushbot. Bush isn't perfect and has a lousy record on securing our borders.

All that you stated was opinion. My red flags are the stevedore company, Eller & Co, has been objecting to this deal all along and Dubai is going to do business with Hamas.

[takenoprisoner]

Here's the truth. It's a no brainer...it's a bad deal for our national security.

our national security comes before any political party. That is the test of a true patriot.

Having muslims (terrorists) running operating controlling associating mixing with our strategic ports in any manner, whether on paper or not, is bad for our national security.

We do not need some (most of the time worthless) congressional non investigation to determine this. We only need to utilize our good common sense to determine that having muslims(terrorists) standing at our ports of entry is suicide.

[eskimo]

For me to believe that this merger was approved with grave concerns existing for our National Security, the following would have to be true:

1) President Bush does not care about American lives or National Security.

2) Vice President Bush does not care about American lives or National security.

3) Secretary of State Condoleza Rice does not care about American lives or National Security.

4) Attorney General Gonzales does not care about American lives or National Security.

5) The Pentagon, the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury, the FBI, the CIA, and the Department of Homeland Security have all sold out America, and have been bought "lock-stock-and barrel" by islamic fascists.

Except for the name of the Vice-President it all sounds believable to me.

[LibLieSlayer]

I find that extremely sad.

LLS

[eskimo]

I find that extremely sad.

You're right, it is extremely sad for America.

[chris1]

He is fighting the WAR to screw the average American on every front.

I am utterly sick of this nonsense.

[chris1]

I can't tell you about the buyers' remorse I have for GWB right now.

[Final Authority]

Sounds like you are very happy with the leadership of GWB since it is not he who is slacking off with respect to border security, that he doesn't apparently have a say in the matter, that it is indeed congress who must make policy, not GWB. So, you are happy. Good for you. Next time GWB speaks using poor English constructed sentences, actually fragments, please, be careful nodding your head 'cause we wouldn't want you to cause a dislocation, you know.

Many companies contract out security services, but would you rather have Bin Laden, for example, making the decision who they are to hire, than someone like Tony Blair, to take it to extremes?

We have been told by GWB suck ups, that they are only trading contracts and that security was already contracted. You are delusional to not see through the language in that in MLB teams trade contracts and when they do the player traded also has new masters to perfrom for. It is not just a contract. When one buys a house, one is trading a contract, for money of course, but who gets to live in it and who gets to decide how to or what color to paint it, etc.? After all, it is just a contract.

[Just mythoughts]

There is something larger than 'GWB' at work here. What exactly I do not know, may well be a result of those trade agreements in the very very fine print.

Now Congress in a twinkle of an eye got on board supporting McCain's anti-torture amendment and the full ramification of that amendment I do not believe has been discovered.

Why 'GWB' has taken the position he has on border security and the illegal invasion must be interrupted in part of what the sense of Congress is and the majority in Congress have continually demonstrated the intent NOT to touch these problems. WHY?

This is NOT an issue of my happiness, rather a look at the whole picture, and with the exception of a FEW people in this nation the majority of elected leaders appear to NOT give a rats behind about the illegal invasion or establishing a secure border.

Our current situation did NOT occur overnight and appears to me that what is occurring is not from malignant neglect but rather a grand design that was put into place years ago.

Now social security needs funding and appears that the main method of a funding is hinged upon a mass illegal invasion. Port security to my way of thinking should be one of those acts that should be done by Americans NOT contracted out to any foreign national corporation. How did that happen, GWB sure was not in elected office when those contracts were signed?

[brainstem223]

What is the GOP thinking? When have they ever thinked? This decision is a worse breach of security/sovereignty then when the idiot carter gave away the Panama Canal. Its as if we contracted Mitsubishi Heavy industries to transport our Hellcat fighters from the west coast to the Pacific theater in the middle of WWII. Unthinkable and despicable, and reeking with the stink of incompetency...

[brainstem223]

This decision is so monumentally insane that even the dimwitted demonrats see the implications.

We have people dieing on a daily basis to fight muslins and then we undercut their sacrifices by exposing the soft underbelly of our ports to the enemy? INSANITY and a DEATH wish for the nation...!

[brainstem223]

It's way beyond DNC propaganda, they are not good enough to make something this damaging up, this decision is just plain startlingly idiocy on every level; starting with the political. We are told we are in a War and yet we blithely expose our ports to enemy control and infiltration, all the while we get taxed ridiculous amounts for defense and national security. And you think think to frame it in terms of party politics... Sheeeeech!

[zook]

I have yet to read a single cogent or thoughtful reason why this deal should not go through as planned. All I see is stuff like "they's A-rabs!" Why, who knew there might be Arabs or Muslims working in port security right now! Conservatives ought to show more logic and reasoning than I've seen here. Maybe there are good reasons why this deal shouldn't go through, but I haven't seen any here.

[oceanview]

you clearly do not understand basic politics.

[zook]

Ooh! Another good reason for not going through with the deal! Because I don't understand basic politics! Well Ah'll be doggone!

[oceanview]

there have been plenty of posts on why this should not go through. since you've obviously discounted all of those, then maybe you will accept bad politics as justification enough. because this sure as hell is bad politics, and if you can't see that we are getting killed on this issue, I don't know what to say.