| Management of Six Major U.S. Seaports sold to A United Arab Emirates Company!!!
Posted: 2/17/2006 5:39:50 AM | | The United States and it's Homeland Security program requires that any company that manages the seaports of The United States must have access to America's logistical prodical and all it's security functions. A London based company that had been managing America's seaports has just sold those rights to a United Arab Emirates Company. This was reported from XM Radios 169 " The Power " ( The Joe Madison Show ) !!! | |
|
| |
| |
| Management of Six Major U.S. Seaports sold to A United Arab Emirates Company!!!
Posted: 2/20/2006 11:52:31 AM | I am still trying to understand this. I would think a move such as this would be the greatest security risk of ALL time to our country. How can homeland security say that ALL precations have been taken. As good as they may be, how could anyone anticipate all the future risks? I don't mean any disrespect to the Arab people, but since there were a number of terrorists that executed the 9/11 attack that were from Arab Empirates , it just doesn't seem like it is wise to turn control of our major ports to an outside source. I would think there would be a great chance for disaster. I hope the people of this country are writing to their congressman and/or representative, and voice their dissapproval. | |
|
| Management of Six Major U.S. Seaports sold to A United Arab Emirates Company!!!
Posted: 2/20/2006 1:35:02 PM | I think this is being made out to be a bigger issue that it is.
They manage the ports, they don't own them. They won't be supplying the labour at them by importing their own countrymen to work the docks. It's not like a beach head has been set up on American soil by an invading army. It could just as easily been a Canadian company for example. Doesn't mean you'd ever see one Canadian within thirty miles of the ports in question. As long as that's the case, since the ports are American they are governed and policed by Americans and American policy. Nothing really changes. If somebody was going to try and import a bomb through those ports, it could have happened no matter who managed them. The fear of course is that say, Al Qaida sympathizers within the company would facilitate just such a delivery by deceiving the US port authorities. I would think that this would be a futile attempt however. For one thing, nobody is going to announce their cargo as being a danger to the US public since it's a WMD so they could use any port in that case. Secondly, management of the facility is not the same thing as security when it comes to what goes through the port. That's a government office and they aren't going to take management's word on anything. Example :
US Security -" We hear you got a big package from an O.B. Laden that came from North Korea."
Port Managers - "Maybe."
Security "Well, we checked it out and you did. It also made Bob over there turn green, vomit up his spleen, and develop boils on his eyeballs. We'd like to see what information you have on this package"
Managers - "No."
Security - "Okay. Thanks anyway."
In short, I really don't think this changes anything or is any cause for fear. Of course I'm not in any position to state one way or the other but all things considered, I think that for once, you can take your government's word that things are fine.
Security - "We inspected it | |
|
| |
| |
| Management of Six Major U.S. Seaports sold to A United Arab Emirates Company!!!
Posted: 2/20/2006 3:50:20 PM | I am in transport (broker) and the management being sold to a UAE company may sound worse than it is. Is the company any less diligent that a U.S. company? Is the fear of a dirty bomb or worse more likely to happen? If it is gonna happen it really makes no difference who or where. 911 proved that.
4 | |
|
| Management of Six Major U.S. Seaports sold to A United Arab Emirates Company!!!
Posted: 2/20/2006 4:17:48 PM | | I just saw more "info" on one of the big cable news channels. They actually are conducting a internet poll to determine wheat the general public thinks. As of a few hours ago the poll indicated that 86% thought it was a secirity risk and 14 % thought it wouldn't be. I assume what makes this a hot topic is the fact that a rather large percentage of the terrorists that were from 9/11 were from UAE, and according to the news segment I saw today, it is believed that the funding for 9/11 at least some of it came from UAE. Should they be the ones to determine who comes in our ports , when one takes into account all the facts. Like I said , I know not all Arab people are a risk , and I mean no disrespect to them, but the facts of 9/11 should be taken into account, and money should not superceed the welfare of the people. | |
|
| Management of Six Major U.S. Seaports sold to A United Arab Emirates Company!!!
Posted: 2/20/2006 4:53:58 PM | | ^That's all very fair to consider but to do just that (consider it all I mean) what is the worry ? What exactly can a port authority do when it comes to accepting or turning away ships and cargo ? I'm not saying that they have no control, I'm saying that I don't know. I mean, they just manage the facilities don't they ? If that's the case then what real control do they have over security issues ? Either Homeland security has a reason to suspect a "bad package" or they don't. If they do, it won't matter who manages the ports. If they don't then , if there is one anyway, those that control the ports don't really figure into this anyway. Unless I'm mistaken, security agencies would have to know about a bad package before it leaves for America anyway. If they don't know about it when it departs then how does any port authority know about it when it arrives ? Even if a port management company wanted to use the port as a drop off point for a WMD they would have to be in the know from the start right ? So, in that case, whether they manage a port or not doesn't really make much difference if they are not already being watched by US security agencies. If no agency that is independant of the port management company is watching out in the first place then really, anybody could use any port they wanted. That's all to say that if you're going to leave national security up to a port management company in the first place, perhaps the problem lies there. I don't know but I'm pretty sure that that isn't the case. | |
|
| Management of Six Major U.S. Seaports sold to A United Arab Emirates Company!!!
Posted: 2/20/2006 4:54:52 PM | All I can think of is that there has to be something going on that the general public doesn't know about. I mean how we can sit by why the UAE has the say of what's coming in the country, while we KNOW that they're affiliated with terrorist groups is ludacris. And with the border still not secured. I mean WHAT is going on with this current administration? These decisions just don't make common sense. Have people forgotten about 9/11? Or do people think- mainly DHS and the Bush Administration that we're not in as much danger? It's just as easy to do something to us now as then. I'm just at a loss. I want to beleive that our government has our best interest in mind. It gets harder and harder every day. I found myself emailing CHUCK SCHUMER asking him NOT to shut his mouth about this one. And I really hate that guy, but I don't know what else to do.
How is it that this current administration can choose not to listen to it's public, the very people that essentially hired them? I'm really asking, I don't know the answer. Can someone please tell me? | |
|
| |
| |
| Management of Six Major U.S. Seaports sold to A United Arab Emirates Company!!!
Posted: 2/20/2006 6:04:34 PM |
I'm not understanding this either. What happened to the port security that was already in charge? Did they get out bid get tired of doing it or what? I need answers.
Hope this helps fox...seems we never owned them anyway..scary huh
Racine Journal Times
The Bush administration's "trust us" philosophy of governance descended to new lows last week with its approval of a $6.8-billion deal that would give a company backed by the United Arab Emirates operational control of six major American ports.
Under the deal, government-backed Dubai Ports World will acquire London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which operates shipping terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, Miami, New Orleans and Philadelphia.
The acquisition won approval from the secretive Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States which reviewed the transaction and did not object.
British shareholders then approved the deal last Monday.
Perhaps we're just guilty of anti-Arab animus. We hope that's not the case. But we have to admit we don't have a great comfort level over this deal.
Some of this is grounded in just plain old suspicion, suspicion that has grown since the terrorist attacks of September 11 and subsequent war on terror.
Our ports, after all, are the doorway to America
Now guess who has the ultimate authority to stop the deal........ | |
|
| Management of Six Major U.S. Seaports sold to A United Arab Emirates Company!!!
Posted: 2/20/2006 7:46:49 PM | Just so we're clear about all of this :
-Does this mean that there will be no security at these ports ? I'm sure that that isn't the case but I just want to be absolutely clear on this.
-What is in place right now ?
-Who is going to make sure that the managers of these ports don't use them to subvert American security ?
By no means am I questioning the facts...I am simply not sure what they are. Is there an FAQ on this subject somewhere ? I can't find anything like this so far but perhaps I need to search a little more diligently. | |
|
| |
| Management of Six Major U.S. Seaports sold to A United Arab Emirates Company!!!
Posted: 2/20/2006 11:16:49 PM | Gota: I've been trying to find out more about the situation as well. As far as I'm aware, our Homeland Security Department and Coast Guard maintain responsibility for security of all of our ports. The shipping operations and terminal management are the responsibility of the contracted company for that port, which is apparently what the Dubai government's company is/would continue to be doing under this contract.
There's a short testimony text to the House Subcommittee on the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation that has a little info about port security at this link, but not enough information for my satisfaction as yet:
http://www.piersystem.com/go/doc/786/77853/
Cougar: I believe the cities OWN the ports, but if they do, I don't understand how the Bush admin could make the decision about transference of ownership of this port management company from UK to the government of Dubai without their involvement. ???
~ Panda | |
|
| Management of Six Major U.S. Seaports sold to A United Arab Emirates Company!!!
Posted: 2/20/2006 11:28:58 PM |
I heard today that there should be no more concern about UAE than there was with Britain. The UAE is one of the US's biggest allies.
Well, yes. We all "heard" the line from the PR machine at the White House, State Department and Homeland Security that there was no reason for concern. But a lot of congresspeople (including GOP) and American citizens are not yet convinced of that. At the time of 9/11, the UAE was NOT one of our biggest allies (SEE BOLDED PARAGRAPH BELOW!). They may have made some efforts to improve their behavior and clean up their act since then, but I still am stunned that a country that 4-1/2 years ago had some part in assisting the terrorists with the 9/11 attack can now be in control of six of our major seaports' operations, through Dubai Ports World, which the Dubai government apparently owns.
When these congressional hearings air, whatever of them is public, I'm going to be all over them like white on cottage cheese.
This sounds a little insane to me. But then why should I be surprised. Bush is insane.
~ Panda
----
Update 9: Lawmakers Decry Takeover of U.S. Ports
By Will Lester, 02.20.2006, 03:10 AM
Associated Press
U.S. terms for approving an Arab company's takeover of operations at six major American ports are insufficient to guard against terrorist infiltration, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee said Sunday.
"I'm aware of the conditions and they relate entirely to how the company carries out its procedures, but it doesn't go to who they hire, or how they hire people," Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., told The Associated Press.
"They're better than nothing, but to me they don't address the underlying conditions, which is how are they going to guard against things like infiltration by al-Qaida or someone else, how are they going to guard against corruption?" King said.
King spoke in response to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff's comments Sunday about conditions of the sale. King said he learned about the government's terms for approving the sale from meetings with senior Bush administration officials.
Chertoff defended the security review of Dubai Ports World of the United Arab Emirates, the company given permission to take over the port operations. Chertoff said the government typically builds in "certain conditions or requirements that the company has to agree to make sure we address the national security concerns." But Chertoff declined to discuss specifics saying that information is classified.
"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 DP World, a state-owned business. Peninsular and Oriental runs major commercial operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
A Miami company, Continental Stevedoring & Terminals Inc., has filed suit in a Florida court challenging the deal. A subsidiary of Eller & Company Inc., the Miami company maintains it the suit disclosed Saturday evening that it will become an "involuntary partner" with Dubai's government under the sale.
"We are aware of the lawsuit, but cannot comment until our legal teams have a chance to review it," Michael Seymour, president of the North American arm of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation, said Sunday in the company's initial response to the lawsuit.
He noted that his company "is itself a foreign-owned terminal operator that has long worked with U.S. government officials in charge of security at the ports to meet all U.S. government standards, as do other foreign companies that currently operate ports in the United States."
"We are confident that the DP World purchase will ensure that our operations continue to meet all relevant standards in the U.S. through ongoing collaboration between the port operators and American, British, Australian and port security officials throughout the world," Seymour said in a statement telephoned to the AP.
Lawmakers from both parties are questioning the sale 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.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, on CBS' "Face the Nation," said, "It is ridiculous to say you're taking secret steps to make sure that it's OK for a nation that had ties to 9/11, (to) take over part of our port operations in many of our largest ports. This has to stop."
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Arab journalists in an interview Friday at the State Department, that it was "the considered opinion of the U.S. government that this can go forward." She pledged to work with Congress because "perhaps people will need better explanation and will need to understand some of the process that we have gone through."
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, D-N.J., 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."
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. joined some family members of Sept. 11 victims at a news conference Sunday to urge President Bush to personally intervene. The president "should override the agreement and conduct a special investigation into the matter," Schumer said.
Dubai Ports World should not be excluded automatically from such a deal because it is based in the UAE, Chertoff said.
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.
Dubai Ports 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.
"I would hope that our friends in Abu Dhabi would not be offended by the fact that in our democracy, we debate these things," Rice said in the interview with the Arab journalists. | |
|
| Management of Six Major U.S. Seaports sold to A United Arab Emirates Company!!!
Posted: 2/21/2006 6:51:19 AM | Carter is agreeing with the Bush Administration. That's odd.
The Bush administration got support Monday from former President Carter, a Democrat and frequent critic of the administration.
"My presumption is, and my belief is, that the president and his secretary of state and the Defense Department and others have adequately cleared the Dubai government organization to manage these ports," Carter told CNN. "I don't think there's any particular threat to our security."
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff made the rounds on the talk shows Sunday, asserting that the administration made certain the company agreed to certain conditions to ensure national security. H said details of those agreements were secret.
During a stop Monday in Birmingham, Ala., Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the administration had a "very extensive process" for reviewing such transactions that "takes into account matters of national security, takes into account concerns about port security."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060221/ap_on_go_co/port_security | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| Management of Six Major U.S. Seaports sold to A United Arab Emirates Company!!!
Posted: 2/21/2006 7:17:04 AM | I've never known you to disagree with Bush on any single action he's taken. I just
find it odd that you'd think that leaders of opposing parties would concur with
one another. I am what you described as a liberal, and regardless, I agree
with what Bush is doing in this respect.
Just because you can identify yourself with one party more so than another
does not require that you have to agree with every action they take. Why
is it so odd for you to think otherwise? | |
|
| Management of Six Major U.S. Seaports sold to A United Arab Emirates Company!!!
Posted: 2/21/2006 7:24:12 AM | any nation with enough dough to buy into this country will be allowed to BOTTOM LINE
every product the majority buys non edible that is for all u bush imbreads who take things literally is made either ****ing asia this country is in deep shit.
i think il buy me a pair of levis
oh wait they are made in indoneisia! | |
|
| |
Home
login 
