Arab Firm to Manage Our Seaports?

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by TexasF355F1

I don't know where I stand on this. I see where both sides are coming from. I don't see why the government, or a company here in the states can't run it. Although, our government can't run itself now, so I wouldn't exactly see how they could operate a port.

I agree. However, this battle was lost when that British company, Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., was awarded the bid based on competitive open bidding years ago and now they are running commercial operations at the ports of Miami, Philadelphia, New York, New Jersey, Baltimore and New Orleans. If we don't have U.S. companies that can manage ports then shame on us. Are our companies so arrogant, stupid and money hungry (greedy) where they cannot win a bid to manage ports? We were sold out a long time ago.

And where were all of the demogogues when P&O first won the contract. And now they are crying over spilled milk?

Furthermore, although the UAE bought that company out since when do they all of the work and run the show. That my friends is done by people like you and me, meaning Westerners. All the rich Arabs do is sit on their rear ends, bankroll the operations and reap any monetary benefits, if any.

I worked in one of those rich Arab countries for three years and know better.

If you check the background of P&O they do not manage port security. That is done by the US Coast Guard and Department of Homeland Security (Customs).

If the UAE had any sense they should bail out of the deal because the next terrorist attack attributed to them will not go unanswered and they will have a hell of a price to pay. However, that remains to be seen when all the dust settles on this issue.

[jpolicke]

You missed my point. UAE takes over, and Homeland Security says welcome and hands them the book of required procedures. They now know exactly what the procedures are, what gets checked, how we decide what to check, what we use, what it can and can't detect, etc.

Espionage isn't about getting the whole story handed to you in one big lump; it involves picking up a bit here, another there, and building a picture out of all the pieces. I am not convinced that the UAE knows who they have in their own country. Is it so farfetched to imagine a scenario where an AlQaida type gets hired at DPW, now he has access to this info, and reports it all back to the home office?

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by jpolicke

You missed my point. UAE takes over, and Homeland Security says welcome and hands them the book of required procedures. They now know exactly what the procedures are, what gets checked, how we decide what to check, what we use, what it can and can't detect, etc.

Espionage isn't about getting the whole story handed to you in one big lump; it involves picking up a bit here, another there, and building a picture out of all the pieces. I am not convinced that the UAE knows who they have in their own country. Is it so farfetched to imagine a scenario where an AlQaida type gets hired at DPW, now he has access to this info, and reports it all back to the home office?

Your point is well taken but consists of too much hyperbole and speculation. Now that this is in the public eye there will be more scrutiny and heightened security. UAE DPW will undergo that which is a plus. Who is to say Al Qaida operatives have not already infiltrated P&O before the purchase? We can go on for days speculating.

Also, it turns out that the politicians and the media have blown this out if proportion and misrepresented the facts. They will not be managing the ports:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0222/p01s01-usfp.html


Excerpt:

"In a weird way, the interagency review allows the US to hold international companies to a higher level of standards and accountability," says Frank Cilluffo, director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University. "There are some legitimate security concerns, but it's going to come down to enforcement, and arguably at a higher standard than we have had in the past."

Companies like P&O don't provide security at the ports. The US Coast Guard and Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement do. For instance, in New Orleans, P&O is one of eight terminal operators responsible for marketing the port, signing agreements with shipping lines, hiring labor, loading ships, and moving cargo.

But P&O has no responsibility for security. "We have our own police force, harbor patrol, customs officers, and Coast Guard," says Chris Bonura, spokesman for the Port of New Orleans. "That won't change no matter who is operating the terminal."

P&O is not commenting on the political uproar over the deal. But a source within the company worries that the media and politicians are misrepresenting the arrangements. Other who work within the port communities agree. They note that P&O will not be "managing" the ports, as many news organizations have reported. Instead, the company is one of many that leases terminals at the port.

"I've never quite seen a story so distorted so quickly," says Esther de Ipolyi, a public-relations executive who works with the port of Houston. "It's like I go to an apartment building that has 50 apartments, and I rent an apartment. This does not mean I took over the management of the whole building."

[carrrnuttt]

I completely agree with jpolicke in this thread.

In addition: http://baku.usembassy.gov/cons/warden/warden05.html

The Embassy of United States of America
Warden Notice

March 17, 2003

Update on Travel to UAE

On March 10, The Department of State warned U.S. citizens to defer non-essential travel to the UAE and advised that U.S. citizens in the UAE should consider departing. This warning remains in effect. The U.S. Embassy in Abu Dhabi also released the following Warden Message on March 16.

The U.S. Mission to the United Arab Emirates has received indications of a possible terrorist attack against night clubs in Dubai. Americans in Dubai are urged to avoid such locations. In its February 6 Worldwide Caution, the Department noted that terrorists and their sympathizers are seeking softer targets as security is increased at official US facilities. As stated in the March 10 Travel Warning for the United Arab Emirates, Americans in the UAE should exercise caution and take prudent measures to maintain their security. They should remain vigilantly aware of surroundings, avoid crowds and demonstrations, keep a low profile, vary times and routes for all travel, and ensure travel documents are current. The US Consulate General in Dubai is located on the 21st floor of the Dubai World Trade Center, P.O. Box 9343. The telephone number is (971) (4) 311-6000, and the Consular Section fax number is (971) (4) 331-8594. The website for the US Consulate General in Dubai can be accessed through the Embassy website http://www.usembabu.gov.ae. The workweek is Saturday through Wednesday.

The U.S. Embassy in Abu Dhabi is located on 11th St., also known as Al-Sudan St., P.O. Box 4009. The telephone number is (971) (2) 443-6691, and the Consular Section fax number is (971) (2) 443-5786. The after hours telephone number is (971) (2) 443-4457. The Embassy internet website is http://www.usembabu.gov.ae.

US citizens should also consult the Department of State's Consular Information Sheet for the UAE, the Worldwide Caution Public Announcement, and the Middle East and North Africa Update Public Announcement, which are located on the Department's internet website at http://travel.state.gov.

That wasn't that long ago.

More:

US missions in UAE
shut on 'specific threat'
Mar. 25, 2004
Agence France-Presse


DUBAI - The US embassy and consulate closed Wednesday in the United Arab Emirates after a "specific threat" and fears of a bomb attack briefly shut the embassy in Riyadh, as Washington sounded a terror warning to Americans worldwide after Israel assassinated Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.

"The embassy in Abu Dhabi and consulate in Dubai have temporarily suspended operations for Wednesday, March 24 in light of a specific threat to the embassy in Abu Dhabi," the mission announced, amid Arab fury at the killing of the leader of the radical Palestinian Islamic movement Hamas.

"The embassy and consulate will be assessing their security posture on the Thursday-Friday (Muslim) weekend with regard to the re-opening Saturday," it said.

"We have no specific threat information against the American community in the United Arab Emirates however the Department of State has issued a new worldwide caution and a new Middle and North Africa public announcement in light of the killing of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin."

In the Saudi capital, the US embassy took swift measures after reports of an explosion that later proved unfounded.

"We closed for less than an hour shortly before 9:00 a.m. (0600 GMT) in response to reports of an explosion in Riyadh," embassy spokesperson Carol Kalin told Agence France-Presse.

"We then worked with Saudi authorities and determined that there was no threat to the embassy, so we reopened.

The reports spoke of yet another attack on a residential compound in the Saudi capital, which was rocked by a series of suicide bombings against residential complexes that killed 52 people in May and November 2003.

Despite an unrelenting crackdown on Islamist extremists believed linked to the Al-Qaeda network and blamed for last year's suicide bombings, Saudi officials fear further attacks in the kingdom.

On February 13, the interior ministry warned Riyadh residents that a car packed with explosives registered to a wanted suspect could be used in an attack.

Hundreds of suspected militants have been rounded up and many killed in shootouts with security forces since the bombings began last May.

Washington warned Americans around the world, especially in the Middle East, of heightened security risks after Israel's "targeted killing" Monday of the spiritual chief of Hamas in a helicopter strike in Gaza City.

"The Department of State is deeply concerned about the heightened threat of terrorist attacks against US citizens and interests abroad in the aftermath of the recent killing," a public announcement said Tuesday.

It issued travel warnings for the Middle East and North Africa, saying: "Credible information has indicated terrorist groups may be planning attacks against US interests in the Middle East.

"While conventional weapons such as explosive devices are a more immediate threat in many areas, use of non-conventional weapons, including chemical or biological agents must be considered a possible threat."

The State Department also urged Americans to leave the Gaza Strip and to defer travel to Israel and the Palestinian territories.

US embassies in Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen issued their own alerts to American nationals, warning they to avoid demonstrations.

"We're aware of the various statements, many of them made by terrorist groups, that threaten the United States and that threaten Americans," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said. "We have to take all those threats seriously."

It's not usually what we know that's the real threat, it's what's hiding behind it.

Westerners (hired by Dubai) might eventually run the ports, but they still have to report everything to their superiors in Dubai. We might be able to ensure security of information on oir soil, regardless of who's running it, but we cannot speak for Dubai, or the rest of the emirates.

Lastly, no one has mentioned that there are a large number of MILITARY shipments that pass through these ports poised for takeover, especially the ones from Bush's own home state, Texas -- to the point that Bush's own man, Tom DeLay, is speaking against the sale: http://www.heralddemocrat.com/articl...ws/state01.txt

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by bnaylor3400

"It's like I go to an apartment building that has 50 apartments, and I rent an apartment. This does not mean I took over the management of the whole building."

To respond to this analogy, with another of my own, with the context jpolicke has given:

The "renter", to have access to the apartment, has to have access to the building and all its amenities. If this fictitious "renter" had a plot to blow up the building, he/she will have access to see the inner workings of the building--where the gas pipes, water mains, electricals, etc. are.

Even if the plot were bigger, that is, to undermine the building management group, instead of simply a design on the building, the "renter" can see how the company runs this particular building, and with good planning, will know which systems to sabotage to maximize damage to the company's infrastructure, whether it is in the "renter's" building, or another one the same company manages.

Even then, it doesn't have to be the "renter" that has the evil designs...it can be anyone this "renter" happens to allow access to.

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

Paranioa is getting the better of a lot of people.

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

To respond to this analogy, with another of my own, with the context jpolicke has given:

The "renter", to have access to the apartment, has to have access to the building and all its amenities. If this fictitious "renter" had a plot to blow up the building, he/she will have access to see the inner workings of the building--where the gas pipes, water mains, electricals, etc. are.

Even if the plot were bigger, that is, to undermine the building management group, instead of simply a design on the building, the "renter" can see how the company runs this particular building, and with good planning, will know which systems to sabotage to maximize damage to the company's infrastructure, whether it is in the "renter's" building, or another one the same company manages.

Even then, it doesn't have to be the "renter" that has the evil designs...it can be anyone this "renter" happens to allow access to.

Again, speculation and hyperbole. BTW - Good imagination.

The UAE does not sound like an enemy to me but a good ally and it sounds like the deal will be mutually beneficial no matter what the pundits and demogogues say.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022401810.html

Excerpt:

"One intelligence official pointed out that when the U.S. Navy no longer made regular use of Yemen after the USS Cole was attacked in 2000, it moved its port calls for supplies and repairs to Dubai.

Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on Tuesday praised the "superb" military-to-military relationship with the UAE, saying, "In everything that we have asked and work with them on, they have proven to be very, very solid partners."


And:

Statement by Senator John W. Warner, R-Va.
Chairman, U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee
Committee Briefing on Ports Deal
February 23, 2006


Many constituents and others have shared their views with me on the pending acquisition of the Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Navigation Company by Dubai Ports World, a government-owned and controlled firm of the United Arab Emirates.

Current law (section 721, P.L. 100-418) provides a process for reviewing foreign acquisitions of U.S. companies to determine their effects on our national security. Since 1988, the primary responsibility for reviewing foreign acquisitions and their potential effect on national security has resided with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). Twelve federal departments and agencies are represented on CFIUS, including the Departments of Treasury, State, Defense, Commerce, Homeland Security and Justice.

Tuesday morning, I met with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, and others at the Department, and we discussed the Dubai Ports World acquisition in depth. After further consultation with the Administration, I decided a briefing for the Committee, in public session, was needed to allow the relevant facts to be put on the record for the availability of all Members.

Today, I chaired such a briefing and news conference, at which representatives from the Department of Defense, Homeland Security, State and Treasury gave testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee and responded to questions from Senators and members of the press. I believe that the testimony and responses we heard will assist the Congress as we examine this issue when the Senate reconvenes next week.

I have not taken a position on any legislative proposals that would attempt to block or delay this deal. While we must always ensure that any proposed foreign acquisition does not threaten our national security, we must also recognize the importance of making fair and objective decisions in working with our allies, especially those which are actively supporting the coalition of nations engaged in fighting the global war on terror.

The United Arab Emirates, in my view, has played a key role supporting the United States in the war on terror. The UAE provides access and logistical assistance to our men and women in the armed forces performing service in Afghanistan and Iraq, such as providing extensive docking support for a large number of naval ships, and making airfields available for the U.S. Air Force.

Now that our briefing has initiated the open and deliberative Senate examination of this issue, I will work closely with my colleagues when the Senate reconvenes next week, to ensure that our ports remain secure, and that we continue to support our allies in the war on terror. We will also examine the way in which this Administration and others implement the current review process for such deals, and make a decision on whether to modify the process going forward.

And:

Senator McCain Backs the President on Port Deal
This from NRO's The Corner:

Statement by Senator John McCain on the debate over the Bush Administration’s decision to allow Dubai Ports World of the United Arab Emirates manage U.S. sea ports.

“We all need to take a moment and not rush to judgment on this matter without knowing all the facts. The President’s leadership has earned our trust in the war on terror, and surely his administration deserves the presumption that they would not sell our security short. Dubai has cooperated with us in the war and deserves to be treated respectfully. By all means, let’s do due diligence, get briefings, seek answers to all relevant questions and assurances that defense officials and the intelligence community were involved in the examination and approval of this transaction. In other words, let’s make a judgment when we possess all the pertinent facts. Until then, all we can offer is heat and little light to the discussion.”

[jpolicke]

Warner is a good loyal republican who is willing to let Bush stick his hand up his ass and work his mouth like the dummy that he is. In return Bush will throw something to his state, maybe a base off the BRAC list or some earmarked funds for some useless project.

As far as the UAE being a good ally, they're rather late to the party, and I question their sincerity.

Like quotes from documents? Here's a beauty:

From the 9/11 Report:
At the beginning of February, Bin Ladin was reportedly located in the vicinity of the Sheikh Ali camp, a desert hunting camp being used by visitors from a Gulf state. Public sources have stated that these visitors were from the United Arab Emirates.151

Now why would such good friends of the U.S. want to be within 100 miles of a scumbag like Bin Laden?

The United Arab Emirates was becoming both a valued counterterrorism ally of the United States and a persistent counterterrorism problem. From 1999 through early 2001, the United States, and President Clinton personally, pressed the UAE, one of the Taliban's only travel and financial outlets to the outside world, to break off its ties and enforce sanctions, especially those relating to flights to and from Afghanistan.165 These efforts achieved little before 9/11.

Hazmi persuaded the administrator of the Islamic Center to let him use the administrator's bank account to receive a $5,000 wire transfer from someone in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates (this was KSM's nephew, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali).29

In other words, AlQaeda has infiltrated itself throughout the UAE business and legal structure.

From Pakistan, the operatives transited through the UAE en route to the United States. In the Emirates they were assisted primarily by al Qaeda operatives Ali Abdul Aziz Ali and Mustafa al Hawsawi. Ali apparently assisted nine future hijackers between April and June 2001 as they came through Dubai. He helped them with plane tickets, traveler's checks, and hotel reservations; he also taught them about everyday aspects of life in the West, such as purchasing clothes and ordering food. Dubai, a modern city with easy access to a major airport, travel agencies, hotels, and Western commercial establishments, was an ideal transit point.

So the UAE has little control over security in their own country, but we can feel safe giving them access to a secure facility in ours.

Pre-9/11 the UAE was as leaky as a sieve. Their cooperation consisted mainly of lip service. That they're doing anything right now is that they took to heart the stand of Bush that you're either with us or the terrorists.

For the sake of this country, will people please stop the PC "we love everybody and don't want to hurt anyone's feelings" BS and start looking out for #1?

[Muscletang]

Originally Posted by jpolicke

For the sake of this country, will people please stop the PC "we love everybody and don't want to hurt anyone's feelings" BS and start looking out for #1?

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by bnaylor3400

Again, speculation and hyperbole. BTW - Good imagination.

What you're not understanding is this: It's ALL speculation and hyperbole.

No matter how your version of "The Greatest Administration of ALL Time!", Dubai, or anybody else, assures us, we can never know how such access to the ports by a state that has been proven to have been friendly to our current enemies can be abused.

You are quick to call paranoia. Let's examine that:

Here's a quote from a member you full-heartedly agreed with, when we were discussing the wire-tapping issue:

Originally Posted by Fleet 472

It's not "fear-mongering," is realism. Unfortuntely, many people are still living in a pre-9/11 world. Big mistake.

That's his response when I stated that Bush said the word "terror" almost 100 times in his State of the Union speech, in an effort to keep Americans afraid, so that he can continue doing whatever he wants in the name of security.

Though we can't predict how this unprecedented access can be abused, or if it will be abused at all, we at least can see what is lurking behind it:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...1/154305.shtml

Long article, but here's a snippet:

The royal family is not a monolith. There are 7,000 princes (all on generous stipends from birth) plus their wives (many still have three or four) and sisters and daughters, for a total of 24,000 members of the House of Saud. Male princes get $500,000 a year for expenses. The Saud family budget is about $3 billion a year, though the kingdom is now in hock to foreign banks to the tune of $225 billion.

Many of these princes still think of bin Laden as a larger-than-life hero who defeated the mighty Soviet Union and gave the world's only superpower its biggest blow since Pearl Harbor. Even Prince Naef, one of the Sudeiri Seven (sons of King Abdul Aziz, also known as Ibn Saud, the founder of the dynasty, and the same mother), has said publicly that bin Laden was not involved in 9/11. Israel's intelligence service, the Mossad, did it, he said, regurgitating an old chestnut first peddled by a former head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency, Hamid Gul, who is also a fundamentalist extremist.

Bin Laden remains an immensely popular figure in Saudi Arabia. Many Wahhabi clerics revere him as some sort of miracle man.

As recently as July 27, Prince Amr Muhammad al-Faisal encouraged today's enemies of the United States to study the strategies employed by America's enemies during the Vietnam War. Writing in Arab News, a Saudi newspaper, this prince of the royal blood, who frequently escorts high-ranking foreign visitors, said the U.S. Army "is so weak that Americans should fear an invasion by the Mexican army."

Amr poured out his venom on the U.S. military operation that killed Saddam's two sons, Uday and Qusay. "I was appalled," he wrote, "it took a 50:1 ratio (and I'm ignoring helicopters etcetera) of crack (at least that's what the Americans call them) troops five hours to kill three men and boy who were hiding, not in a heavily fortified bunker, but in a simple villa. What a disgrace! ... Had these been Saudi troops I would have urged that they be court-martialed for sheer colossal incompetence and cowardice. ... U.S. strategy, doctrine, tactics, and whatever else you can think of, have reached the point of total bankruptcy."

A month ago, Amr vented his spleen on Paul Bremer, denouncing the U.S. administrator in Iraq, for "breathtakingly brazen arrogance ... the awesome white man is no longer held in awe." In yet another of his regular anti-American diatribes, he questioned the New York Times' judgment that Colin Powell should be held responsible for the failure of U.S. foreign policy. "How did Powell become an easy victim of the Bush administration? It's simple. In American cowboy movies, the black characters die before the end of the film."

Nor does this prince charming spare the Jews, who have led "U.S. foreign policy into a blind alley" and who will become "the scapegoat ... for the failure of these policies."

Crown Prince Abdullah, who is de facto ruler due to the king's long illness, and most of his royal and non-royal Cabinet colleagues are firmly opposed to bin Laden and his evil terrorist enterprise. They know they are first on al-Qaeda's hit list.

But Abdullah doesn't speak for 24,000 royals. He doesn't even speak for Prince Naef bin Abdul Aziz, the interior minister who gives bin Laden a pass on 9/11. And who, as one of the seven Sudeiri brothers, is in line to inherit the throne. After Abdullah, Defense Minister Prince Sultan is next in line. Prince Salman, the popular governor of Riyadh, has made clear he will jump Naef when the time comes.
The 27 pages excised from a 900-page-long congressional report on the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks do not shed any light on the kingdom's split personality and the love/hate relationship its people have, with both Osama bin Laden and the United States.

It might all be speculation, but I'd rather speculate on the safe side. Don't you?

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

What you're not understanding is this: It's ALL speculation and hyperbole.

No matter how your version of "The Greatest Administration of ALL Time!", Dubai, or anybody else, assures us, we can never know how such access to the ports by a state that has been proven to friendly to our current enemies can be abused.

You are quick to call paranoia. Let's examine that:

Here's a quote from a member you full-heartedly agree with, when discussing the wire-tapping:


That's his response when I stated that Bush said the word "terror" almost 100 times in his State of the Union speech, in an effort to keep Americans afraid, so that he can continue doing whatever he wants in the name of security.

Though we can't predict how this unprecedented access can be abused, or if it will be abused at all, we at least can see what is lurking behind it:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...1/154305.shtml

Long article, but here's a snippet:

More like a knee jerk reaction.

I don't speculate and would rather wait until all the facts are in just like your buddy Senator John McCain suggested. It might help to get an understanding of the issue without being overly simplistic. If you weren't so anti-Bush I'd probably agree with you but the Democrats have weighed in and the issue has become strictly political. As a result I'm on the other side of the fence.

See link below by NPR on the Newark Port. It turns out that the 6th terminal there will be operated jointly between DPW and Denmark. Be sure to press LISTEN.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5227732


Senator McCain Backs the President on Port Deal
This from NRO's The Corner:

Statement by Senator John McCain on the debate over the Bush Administration’s decision to allow Dubai Ports World of the United Arab Emirates manage U.S. sea ports.

“We all need to take a moment and not rush to judgment on this matter without knowing all the facts. The President’s leadership has earned our trust in the war on terror, and surely his administration deserves the presumption that they would not sell our security short. Dubai has cooperated with us in the war and deserves to be treated respectfully. By all means, let’s do due diligence, get briefings, seek answers to all relevant questions and assurances that defense officials and the intelligence community were involved in the examination and approval of this transaction. In other words, let’s make a judgment when we possess all the pertinent facts. Until then, all we can offer is heat and little light to the discussion.”

[iPoddity]

i think i only disagree with it because i am part isolationist. but jesus christ, why the hell do we have to sell our ports to another country? OUR land, OUR borders! why cant we govern them ourselves? and what is going on behind the scenes that the media isnt telling us, but makes bush want this to happen so bad? something about this makes me uneasy.

Whats next after this? Saudi Arabian firms running our airport security?

[BNaylor]

To put this into context and perspective, a lot of foreign companies to include foreign governments lease areas of our major ports. The problem existed way before the Bush II administration:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...a/13956543.htm

Excerpt:

An Arab company's potential takeover of some marine terminals at six major ports on the East Coast has raised questions about foreign operations at seaport facilities.

Such arrangements have been commonplace at West Coast ports for years.
Most of the cargo that enters the country comes through huge ports in Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland and the Seattle-Tacoma area of Washington.

Each has marine terminals operated by foreign shipping lines - many from Europe and Asia.

"On the West Coast, almost all the ports have their terminals operated by foreign companies," said Ivan Eland, senior fellow at The Independent Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization based in Oakland.

About half of the port terminals on the East Coast are managed by companies based overseas, he added.

[jpolicke]

This is hardly a part-line debate. Many Republicans have also taken the administration to task over this move, not least among them Peter King, head of the House Committee on Homeland Security.

While certain facilities are operated by foreign countries, I repeat my objection: not THESE facilities to THIS country. Not now.

There. I've said it. Let the name-calling begin.

If something like another 9/11 or worse happens, is it going to be any consolation to say "Well, at leat we showed the world how fair and non-racist we are. Better this than to hurt anyone's feelings."?

[TheMan5952]

I have no problems with a UAE company being a port manager. I have been there and other countries in that area and was greated warmly by the people there. And the fact then when I went there there was a shit load of other 'westerners' over there that live there year round.

The ports we managed by a foreign firm until the UAE company bought the leases to it. Why should we set a double standard just because of geographic location.

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by TheMan5952

I have no problems with a UAE company being a port manager. I have been there and other countries in that area and was greated warmly by the people there. And the fact then when I went there there was a shit load of other 'westerners' over there that live there year round.

The ports we managed by a foreign firm until the UAE company bought the leases to it. Why should we set a double standard just because of geographic location.

I spent three years in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia working with a major US defense contractor and every year we took leave to Abu Dhabi and/or Dubai. They are pro US. A lot of Americans work in the UAE. Our military bases both Air Force and Navy have strategic importance, especially with Iran rattling its sabres. If the deal falls through we will pay the price. The eyes of the Arab world are upon us and it has nothing to do with political correctness. As of today not pre-9/11, the UAE is an important US ally and should be treated accordingly.

Since 9/11 new security measures are in place at the ports, therefore DPW will be under very close scrutiny and has basically agreed to be scrutinized. As long as no short cuts are taken and they pass all requirements imposed by US law or statute I see no problems allowing them to lease terminals at the ports in question. It makes good business sense and in the long term will benefit national security.