Arab-owned American Ports?

[movie zombie]

did anyone see this in the Washington Times?! geez, i thought our ports were, well, OUR ports!
=====================

Arab-owned American ports?
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
February 15, 2006 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of the country's busiest ports -- New York, New Jersey, Baltimore and three others -- are about to become the property of the United Arab Emirates. Do we really want our major ports in the hands of an Arab country where al Qaeda recruits, travels and wires money?
The U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment, a Treasury Department-dominated group which reviews foreign investments, allows such purchases. The committee approved a $6.8 billion transaction between the ports' current British owners and Dubai Ports World, a government-owned United Arab Emirates firm.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060214-102147-5104r.htm

 

[rodentman]

For once I agree with you.

 

[strmrdr]

It was them or China.
China allready owns the biggest and best one.

 

[icefisher]

God help me, for once I agree with Schumer. We will sell the rope with which we ourselves are hung.

 

[rubydick]

MZ, this is one of those "yellow peril" articles that the Moonie Times are big on. Whoops! The Moonie Times is owned by the yellow peril (the Korean Rev. Moon). How do we spell irony?

Really, the idea that foreigners might own pieces of our country should come as no surprise. Our national debt is being financed by Chinese money (yellow peril, ouch!), even while our leaders have done their best to whip up the fear factor ('member that spy plane of ours pre-9/11 in Hainan?). And then there's the Saudis. Ah, maybe we shouldn't mention that...

Always an enemy lurking. Damn furreners! Always out to do us wrong. Which is why we don't just need a military budget, we need a military budget that is bigger than the next ten nations combined, almost all of them our "allies!" We need to spend 300+ billion in Iraq/Afghanistan, but can't find even a fraction of that amount for our own citizens.

We declare ourselves against imperialism, and yet have troops stationed in close to 100 countries. Sorry, shouldn't have mentioned that... Poindexter's total information awareness project will now target me.

I don't care. Come and get me. My name, my address are public. When will the BS level exceed your threshold? When will it cross the line?

Feel had? I sure do. Downside up, upside down. "Freedom" becomes jail, "no child left behind" equals serfdom, "clean skies act" equals a license to pollute, the "patriot act" represents that which our founding patriots did their best to protect us against, all on the back of a concept of "compassionate conservatism." Remember that one? Tough love, so long as it doesn't apply to billionaires. And nearly half the nation has lapped it up.

Orwell would not be proud. He would simply nod.

So go ahead, be shocked that we have allowed a foreign company to take over control of a minor portion of our ports. Be even further shocked that that company is from the Middle East.

But the real scandal is that we have outsourced the Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches of our government to corporations who fly no flag, whose sole goal is personal profit. Schumer and Hillary, McCain and Frist will not dare speak out about that, for those corporations are the people who pay them off.

So they play the race/nationality card. And hope that we are stupid enough to buy into it.

MZ, I think you were trying to push the debate. Thanks. Hope I didn't push it too far.

 

[icefisher]

Richard you sound very wise. I will pick my way through the rubble of Baltimore or NYC so you can share more of your wisdom and tell me where we went wrong.

 

[rubydick]

With Baltimore, you can start with the book:

The Corner

 

[icefisher]

Rodentman - I am being sarcastic. Even as a Tigers fan I do not wish Baltimore to be reduced to rubble.

 

[rubydick]

Aye, aye. Better Baghdad than Baltimore. Fight them over there, so we don''t have to fight them over here, all the while ignoring the fact that we are losing more "over there" than we ever lost "over here."

The funny thing is, if anyone should understand, it is the citizens of NYC. Just how many voted to return Dubya to power?

Some crapolla, eh?

 

[Rank Amateur]

It certainly deserves a hard look. Can''t say I know enough about it to comment.

Richard - I read the usual blather of your posts but I cannot sort out if you are in favor or against. Typical of what we see today, news "stories" long on opinion, fear mongering, and innuendo, yet short on facts. I heard a 5 minute story on NPR about it this morning and didn''t learn a thing about what the deal entails. All I head was NPR gleefully reporting republican on republican crime. I am stupider for having listened to it.

 

[colormyworld]

If the UAE takes over the management of these ports, will they have acess to the details of security at the ports? I f the answer is yes I believe we will be more vulnerable to attack!

 

[Mr Majestyk]

I think the ports are so porous that it really doesn''t matter who manages them. So many containers come in, any truck driver with a DL can get in and pick up a container. Whatever security issues exist will exist regardless of the country in which the mgt is located. Maybe with UAE mgt we will take measures to tighten security. Could be a good thing.

 

[Selkie]

Port security is in the hands of the Coast Guard, and is already ridiculously underfunded, one of the classic unfunded mandates arising out of the post-9/11 mania for Homeland Security. The Coast Guard is essentially begging for the money need to cover the increased security, although even if they get it, only a very small percentage of containers, trucks, and ships can be checked anyway. The deal with Dubai entails the physical operations of the ports, including managing the docks and cranes used to load and unload cargo, not the actual protection and monitoring of traffic in the ports. What people (at least, those who are thinking beyond the knee-jerk reaction of "What? Arabs running American ports?") have issues with is making sure that the employees of the company undergo rigorous security/background checks; also there are apparently questions about the financial basis of the company, and whether there are ties to terrorist groups (I don''t know too much about the validity of this, it''s possible. But you could also say that the prior company running the show, which was British, "might" have ties to the IRA conflict.)

I live a mile from the Port of Los Angeles, and know several people working in and around it. It seems to be widely accepted that regardless of who''s running the show, and even how much money is thrown at the situation, it''s impossible to prevent every conceivable act of terrorism that might be directed at the ports. Doesn''t mean we shouldn''t try, but we have to be realistic.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

If, say, a nuclear or dirty bomb arrives and is unloaded at a port, it doesn''t much matter if it is detected at that point. Once it arrives, it can be detonated at the port. The port itself is a target. A lot of the meaningful enforcement takes places at the shipping port where we supposedly have agents working to preclude dangerous items ever being shipped.

 

[firebirdgold]

I read somewhere that this was part of a ''deal'' for information. Which is why the white house is so set on it. This company isn''t even going to be required to keep copies of their documents in the country, which means they can''t be subpoenaed for a court case. Any kind of court case.

A local radio station did a call in about if we should hold an arab company to a different standard. For me it''s not about the culture, but what level of allies the originating country is. For G''s sake, we share nuclear and other military secrets with UK, they''re treated like a sibling. (All the british commonwealth countries are). We should hold any company from a non-bc country to a different standard than one from a bc country. It''s that simple.

 

[tanuki]

We made a "deal" for information which helped our current national security by compromising our FUTURE national security?

That is the CEO mentality of this administration down to a T.

Who cares what happens once we are out of office?

Let the next guy worry about it.