Posted on 02/19/2006 8:44:08 AM PST by 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.
The quote is from the CFIUS page and Bush has the power to block this.
So in your view, even though they're our ports, we have no say when it comes to who runs them.
Better hope bin Laden doesn't buy a controlling interest in DPW, then.
We should not have anybody named "Mohammed" running these ports. Has Bush lost his mind?
"The issue is whether or not our ports should be run by muslims who hate us and intend to destroy us. And this not all muslims crap won't fly anymore. We don't want any muslims claiming to be moderate BS running our ports period."
We are NOT assured that any foreign private company will not hire (your word) 'muslims' my word is terrorists either.
Letting UAE “take over” our ports appears to be a huge mistake. But look at who is coming out on this story. Hillary, Schumer, Graham. My question is: how much of this is a real story and how much is political maneuvering?
No foreign country should be protecting our border or operating any US port. Talk about taking a risk. Chertoff ought to go. ASAP!
Harriet Myers wasn't in a position to nuke NY City. The Arabs desperately want to do so.
See my post #63. Who are you calling an idiot?
LLS
thank you
You seem to have forgotten that we are at war.
During war, the course of action should be to do what is in the best interest of our National Security. Having Port contracts, and/or operations, run by a foreign country is not in our best interest.
Chertoff needs to learn 2 words he will be hearing more of in the future...
ALLAHU AKBAR!
I remember when he was introduced as the new head of HS, my first thought was ... "Are they kidding with this apppointment?"
Please read my post #63. Why do you assume I am in favor of this newly merged company running port operations?
BTW, NO ONE is taking over OUR ports! Become informed. You are on the right side of the argument (concerned about security), but you need to KNOW the facts to argue correctly. Contracts may need to be cancelled, and an AMERICAN company chosen to run port operations. What we have no business doing, is stopping what appears to be a legitimate International business deal. We just DO NOT have to do business with them, if security is threatened.
LLS
"No foreign country should be protecting our border or operating any US port".
The BRITISH have been running these ports for many years. Why is it NOW that you find yourself concerned about "foreign" companies running our ports (dims and the media attention)? It has been this way for many years.
NO, I am NOT in favor of letting this newly merged company continue to run these ports. We need to find out more about the actual situation first. Then if needed, we cancel contracts and reissue to American companies.
LLS
...or he is on the wrong side?
I'll say it.....everything he has done and not done indicates that he has some other interest with a greater priority that the well-being of America.
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.