Dubai company describes plans to sell U.S. port operations

San Diego Union (AP) ^ | 3-15-06 | Ted Bridis

[inquest]

Most of those links make my exact point. He's showing some severe cognitive dissonance, saying on the one hand that the deal isn't about "outsourcing" our security, and then going on about the rigorous security review that CFIUS subjected the deal to. It's not adding up.

[clawrence3]

I thought there was something about not being able to trust anyone from the UAE because 2 of their citizens were involved in 9/11, but I can't find it quickly either.

[Mike Darancette]

I hope the new terminal operators will be required to take the same security precautions that DPW was willing to take.

[clawrence3]

The U.S. Coast Guard and Customs are in charge of security of our ports - no one is "outsourcing" that - the feds have NEVER decided which individual security guard at any particular terminal gets hired or fired, so that was never theirs to "outsource" in the first place. Perhaps I am missing your point?

[inquest]

That's not racism. Besides, it was more than just the fact that two of the hijackers were from there, but also because the country was used as a major base of operations for most of the hijackers. Not to mention the cozy relationship it had with the Taliban.

[clawrence3]

I doubt it (if Schumer or Murray have anything to say about it).

[Mike Darancette]

You are aware that P&O competitor, Eller, down in Miami has lobbied Schumer?

You are aware that P&O competitor, SSA, in Seattle has has Sen. Patty Murray's (D-WA) husband as an employee?

[clawrence3]

All pre-9/11 - perhaps you also missed the radio address where Bush said you are either with us or against us? And, yes, it is racism (or prejudice based on Islam at least) if you won't trust anyone from a certain country based on the actions of 2 citizens.

[clawrence3]

Yup ; )

[inquest]

My point is that he's being inconsistent. If control of the port operations has nothing to do with security, as he seems to have been implying, then why was the deal subjected to the CFIUS security review? He doesn't explain.

[maryz]

I hope the new terminal operators will be required to take the same security precautions that DPW was willing to take.

From what I've read, P&O didn't want to put the money into it, and that's why they were selling.

Did anyone else hear on Rush that the Dubai company already holds terminal rights at one(?) port -- Miami, maybe?

[clawrence3]

No one is saying there's "nothing" to do with security. ALL foreign ownership transfers are subject to CFIUS review - only the ones impacting national security are stopped.

[inquest]

All pre-9/11 - perhaps you also missed the radio address where Bush said you are either with us or against us?

And that instantly caused them to change their attitude towards us? That's naive.

And, yes, it is racism (or prejudice based on Islam at least) if you won't trust anyone from a certain country based on the actions of 2 citizens.

And that's a strawman.

[clawrence3]

They actually promised to upgrade EVERY port terminal they run, not just here in the U.S. but around the world, with radiation and gamma ray detectors - that estimated cost alone was $100 million.

[Mike Darancette]

I hope we are not thinking about kicking all of them out now too.

No, that would be xenophobic.

[Walkin Man]

Bye-bye Dubai.

Don't let the door hit you in the a** on the way out. :)

[inquest]

No one is saying there's "nothing" to do with security.

So there is a security dimension to control of port operations. Just wanted to hear it for sure, because there are others who are claiming otherwise.

[clawrence3]

YOU just said in your post #54 "That's not racism" so it's no strawman argument. As for instantly changing their attitude, no - but it was slowly changing up until this deal falling through and MORE IMPORTANTLY the actions out of UAE were different and cooperative with the U.S. (if nothing else because they didn't want to get invaded next), even if the attitude was not 100% with us.

[clawrence3]

Well, no one from the Administration is saying that - DPW would not be in charge of security for any single port, but yes, they would hire a security guard for their 1 out of 14 other terminals - are you not seeing a distinction there?

[clawrence3]

Are you really prepared to kick every foreign-owned port terminal operator out of the U.S.? And have every other country do the same to us? Be careful what you wish for . . .