Welcome to the Port of Miami, a wholly owned subsidiary of the United Arab Emirates

[shereads]

from the 1979 movie "Network" by Paddy Cheyevsky:

"There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West! There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multi-variate, multi-national dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, Reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds and shekels. It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU WILL ATONE!

"Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale?

<snip> There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and ITT and A T & T and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today. What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state -- Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments, just like we do. <snip>The world is a business, Mr. Beale! It has been since man crawled out of the slime."

Are we there yet?

~ ~ ~

After a Feb. 13 shareholder vote approved the sale of P&O Ports North America to Dubai Ports, Congress apparently noticed that the Treasury Department's Committee on Foreign Investment had previously determined that outsourcing management and security at major U.S. ports to United Arab Emirates "will have no impact on security."

<sigh of relief>

The committee of 12 Bush appointees made its decision during a 30-day window, which it could have extended for another 45 days had it deemed further review necessary.

Excerpts from an ABC-7, Los Angeles report:

Members of Congress and the Bush administration are at odds over whether security is compromised...Some lawmakers expressed concern Sunday that the safeguards are insufficient to thwart infiltration of the vital facilities by terrorists.

At issue is the purchase last week of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., by Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates, or UAE.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff defended the U.S. security review of DP World in various television interviews Sunday.

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said later he wasn't as sure.

"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," King 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?"

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.


Lawmakers from both parties questioned 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. "Most Americans are scratching their heads, wondering why this company from this region now," he said.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., 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."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Arab journalists 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.

~ ~ ~

"We have to balance the paramount urgency of security against the fact that we still want to have a robust global trading system."

~ M. Chertoff, Director of Homeland Security


"Would things be any worse if Bush was working for the other side?"

~ Bill Maher

 

[rgraham666]

"If you do not want people to buy America, do not sell it." - Akio Morita

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I'm all for capitalism, but some things should not be for sale. You don't turn your ports over to other nations, no matter how "friendly" they may seem to be. It IS a breach of national sovereignty and territorial integrity, not to mention national security and the long-term interests of the nation. Sick, sick, sick! The word "treason" comes to mind.

 

[Pure]

The ports

One might note the ports affected:

The British company, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., runs major commercial operations at ports in Baltimore, Miami, New Jersey, New Orleans, New York [Port of NY], and Philadelphia.

So it's only the Eastern and Southern seaboards that are affected.



Washington Post, today.

 

[Liar]

I'm all for capitalism, but some things should not be for sale. You don't turn your ports over to other nations, no matter how "friendly" they may seem to be. It IS a breach of national sovereignty and territorial integrity, not to mention national security and the long-term interests of the nation. Sick, sick, sick! The word "treason" comes to mind.

If you do not think that a private (or corporate) owner should have the right to sell such a cornerstone of the national infrastructure as a port, then you should make sure there are no private (or corporate) owners of ports. Problem solved. You can't have the cake and eat it.

But then again, putting society in control of societiy's infrastructure, that's borderline socialism. Which is apparently evil.

Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

"Steam Navigation" I love those archaic old company names.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

Just imagine the right-wing reaction if a Democrat had proposed doing the same thing.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

If you do not think that a private (or corporate) owner should have the right to sell such a cornerstone of the national infrastructure as a port, then you should make sure there are no private (or corporate) owners of ports. Problem solved. You can't have the cake and eat it.

But then again, putting society in control of societiy's infrastructure, that's borderline socialism. Which is apparently evil.

"Steam Navigation" I love those archaic old company names.

I disagree. Let's just say that I would prefer a middle course. Reasonable regulation of something like that would make sense. (And I'm no fan of most regulations.)

 

[shereads]

One might note the ports affected:

The British company, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., runs major commercial operations at ports in Baltimore, Miami, New Jersey, New Orleans, New York [Port of NY], and Philadelphia.

So it's only the Eastern and Southern seaboards that are affected.

No, they also operate six or seven Texas ports that aren't listed on the corporate website.

SEVERUS: United Arab Emirates is friendly toward the U.S. only if you disregard their connection with the 9/11 attacks. Unlike Saddam's, their connection was real.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

If they bought the port, from a British interest, then it would seem there is nothing intrinsically dangerous, in the opinion of the governemnt, of foerign companies owning and operating U.S. port facilities?

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

What could possibly go wrong...

AHHH, ship full of ninja pirates!!!

Hmm, maybe treasonous sales are good...

 

[shereads]

Just imagine the right-wing reaction if a Democrat had proposed doing the same thing.

Rumple Foreskin

What could they do, Rumple? The impeachment thing is reserved for recipients of extra-marital fellatio who refuse to come clean. What else is left? Spanking? A stern talking-to?


LIAR: I'm not arguing for or against private management of ports. But I think it's reasonable to deny the opportunity to a company whose connection with sponsors of anti-U.S. terrorism is substantiated by more than rumor. Dubai Ports, unlike the UK-based company it's purchasing, isn't a privately held company. It's a state-run entity, like the U.S. Post Office with more ammo.

 

[shereads]

If they bought the port, from a British interest, then it would seem there is nothing intrinsically dangerous, in the opinion of the governemnt, of foerign companies owning and operating U.S. port facilities?

Public versus private isn't the issue, Collie. If it were, the government wouldn't have a review process in place to determine the qualifications of a particular company. In this case, the owner of the company is a government entity with terrorist connections. If Saddam Hussein were on the board of directors, at least the connection with 9/11 would be less direct.

 

[Rope64]

What would we think if a foreign nation objected to a company running its port facilities on the basis that the company was American?

 

[Liar]

LIAR: I'm not arguing for or against private management of ports. But I think it's reasonable to deny the opportunity to a company whose connection with sponsors of anti-U.S. terrorism is substantiated by more than rumor. Dubai Ports, unlike the UK-based company it's purchasing, isn't a privately held company. It's a state-run entity, like the U.S. Post Office with more ammo.

This connection has been established, between the state of Dubai and terrorism? Seems to me like the west has been ever so cuddly with them. For decades. Where is shock-and-awe when you need it now?

 

[shereads]

What would we think if a foreign nation objected to a company running its port facilities on the basis that the company was American?

If Amtrak wanted to operate the trains in Switzerland, I think the Swiss would rightly object. Not because Amtrak is American, but because it's not good with trains.

In this case, the issue is whether Dubai Ports, which is owned by a government entity with links to anti-U.S. terrorism, will be good at securing U.S. ports against terrorism.

Ya think?

 

[shereads]

This connection has been established, between the state of Dubai and terrorism? Seems to me like the west has been ever so cuddly with them. For decades. Where is shock-and-awe when you need it now?

The company is based in Dubai and operated by United Arab Emirates.

Under Sheik Zayed's rule, the Emirates has become a leading regional financial and banking center with close ties to the United States and other Western nations. But following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, the Emirates were among several Middle Eastern countries that came under pressure from Washington to reform its financial and banking sectors, which had been used to funnel funds to international terrorist groups, like al-Qaida.

- Associated Press, Nov. 2004

Within 48 hours of the explosions, the investigators have linked some of the terrorists to the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia.

- The Guardian, Sept. 14 2001

Everybody deserves a second chance not to funnel funds to Al-Qaida, but shouldn't there be a probationary period before we let Junior use the car again?

 

[Rope64]

If Amtrak wanted to operate the trains in Switzerland, I think the Swiss would rightly object. Not because Amtrak is American, but because it's not good with trains.

In this case, the issue is whether Dubai Ports, which is owned by a government entity with links to anti-U.S. terrorism, will be good at securing U.S. ports against terrorism.

Ya think?

Well, what if the Arab World, for example, decided to prohibit American corporations from operating within their borders because the American government sponsors terrorism against Palestinians, which arguably it does. And in our occupation of Iraq, we have openned the doors of that country to infiltration by Israeli agents, while (I believe) Iraq and Israel are still nominally at war. And I expect that most US companies, if asked to use their overseas resources clandestinely to promote US interests against the interests of host nations, would probably do so, and certainly most American citizens would expect them to do so.

I tend to think that the US should not farm out its port security to foreign companies, not even British or Canadian companies. But I question whether the outrage of some people over the Dubai matter is accompanied by the reasonable acceptance that other nations will make similar restrictions against American companies.

 

[shereads]

Well, what if the Arab World, for example, decided to prohibit American corporations from operating within their borders because the American government sponsors terrorism against Palestinians, which arguably it does. And in our occupation of Iraq, we have openned the doors of that country to infiltration by Israeli agents, while (I believe) Iraq and Israel are still nominally at war. And I expect that most US companies, if asked to use their overseas resources clandestinely to promote US interests against the interests of host nations, would probably do so, and certainly most American citizens would expect them to do so.

I tend to think that the US should not farm out its port security to foreign companies, not even British or Canadian companies. But I question whether the outrage of some people over the Dubai matter is accompanied by the reasonable acceptance that other nations will make similar restrictions against American companies.

As far as I'm concerned, this isn't about foreign versus domestic anything. In the era of multinationals, even "foreign cars" are assembled in U.S. factories and aren't much more foreign than your daddy's Chevrolet.

Neither is this an issue of fairness. Hell, I agree that we are guilty of supporting terrorism against Palestine. (Note to anti-Palestinians: this is not an invitation to threadjack.)

I'm not anti-Arab. I'm anti-stupidity. We've spent $400 billion and counting on a so-called 'war on terror' that has done nothing to secure our borders; we have miles of unguarded coastline; Cuban immigrants come ashore at Key West and hang around on Duval Street for a while before turning themselves in, and no one is the wiser. You could probably get into the Port of Miami on a JetSki this afternoon, if you caught a guard napping. So why, in the name of all that is holy, would we compound the problem by allowing a government with known links to the 9/11 attacks to provide security at all of our largest seaports?

(Edited to add: Isn't it ironic that the president who uses terrorism as an excuse to weaken the first amendment and ignore global standards of decency in the treatment of foreign prisoners, is not the teensiest bit reluctant to rubber-stamp this deal?)

I'd feel the same way if Dubai Ports were called Uncle Bubba's Port Management, was based in Alabama and was owned by a Methodist banker linked with the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building.

 

[Pure]

figure this

Posted on Tue, Feb. 21, 2006

U.S. SECURITY

Carter backs Bush's stand on seaport-operations deal


Former President Jimmy Carter downplayed criticism of White House support of an Arab-owned company's purchase of a major seaport-operations firm.

BY LESLEY CLARKlclark@MiamiHerald.com

WASHINGTON - President Bush is taking a battering from fellow Republicans, even the governors of New York and Maryland, over the administration's support for a decision that gives an Arab company control of some commercial operations at six major seaports -- including Miami-Dade's.

But he got a boost Monday from an unlikely source, frequent critic and former president Jimmy Carter, who downplayed fears that the deal poses a risk.

''The overall threat to the United States and security, I don't think it exists,'' Carter said on CNN's The Situation Room. "I'm sure the president's done a good job with his subordinates to make sure this is not a threat.''

 

[shereads]

Posted on Tue, Feb. 21, 2006

U.S. SECURITY

Carter backs Bush's stand on seaport-operations deal


Former President Jimmy Carter downplayed criticism of White House support of an Arab-owned company's purchase of a major seaport-operations firm.

BY LESLEY CLARKlclark@MiamiHerald.com

WASHINGTON - President Bush is taking a battering from fellow Republicans, even the governors of New York and Maryland, over the administration's support for a decision that gives an Arab company control of some commercial operations at six major seaports -- including Miami-Dade's.

But he got a boost Monday from an unlikely source, frequent critic and former president Jimmy Carter, who downplayed fears that the deal poses a risk.

''The overall threat to the United States and security, I don't think it exists,'' Carter said on CNN's The Situation Room. "I'm sure the president's done a good job with his subordinates to make sure this is not a threat.''

They drugged Jimmy Carter?!

 

[3113]

But he got a boost Monday from an unlikely source, frequent critic and former president Jimmy Carter, who downplayed fears that the deal poses a risk.

I've a soft spot for peanut farmer, Jimmy. But he's the last one I'd trust when it comes to opinions on global issues. I still haven't forgiven him for refusing to let America play in the Russian Olympics because he objected to the war in Afganistan (and isn't that now ironic?)--and he really did blow it when it came to the Iran hostage situation.

Granted that hindsight and history are 20/20.

The man was a pretty good domestic president, but, IMHO, he hadn't a clue how to deal with the world outside U.S. borders.

So, in this instance, his opinion really doesn't sway me. Now if he offers on opinion on domestic health care....

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

Here's the latest AP report.

For me, what's most mind-boggling is the almost arrogant political stupidity with which the administration has handled, and is handling, this issue. To quote Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., "It's unbelievably tone deaf politically at this point in our history."

Rumple Foreskin

==

Bush Shrugs Off Objections to Port Deal

By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer
5 minutes ago

Overriding objections from Republicans and Democrats alike, President Bush endorsed the takeover of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports by a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates. He pledged to veto efforts in Congress to block the agreement.

The president on Tuesday defended his administration's approval of the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to Dubai Ports World despite concerns in Congress that it would increase the possibility of terrorism at American ports.

The transaction will allow Dubai Ports World to run major commercial port operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. "If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward," Bush said.

"I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company," Bush said. "I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, `We'll treat you fairly.'"

Bush sought to quiet a political storm that has united Republican governors and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist with liberal Democrats including Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Charles Schumer.

Frist said Tuesday, before Bush's comments, that the pending sale raised "serious questions regarding the safety and security of our homeland."

The Republican speaker of the House, J. Dennis Hastert, asked the president for a moratorium on the sale until it could be studied further. "We must not allow the possibility of compromising our national security due to lack of review or oversight by the federal government," Hastert said.

Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich, during a tour of Baltimore's port on Tuesday, called the deal an "overly secretive process at the federal level."

Frist, R-Tenn., threatened to introduce legislation to put the sale on hold if the White House did not delay the takeover.

Bush took the rare step of calling reporters to his conference room on Air Force One after returning from a speech in Colorado. He also stopped to talk before television cameras after he returned to the White House.

"I can understand why some in Congress have raised questions about whether or not our country will be less secure as a result of this transaction," the president said. "But they need to know that our government has looked at this issue and looked at it carefully."

At the same time, a senior executive from Dubai Ports World pledged the company would agree to whatever security precautions the U.S. government demanded to salvage the deal. Chief operating officer Edward "Ted" H. Bilkey promised Dubai Ports "will fully cooperate in putting into place whatever is necessary to protect the terminals."

Bilkey traveled to Washington in an effort to defuse the growing controversy.

Bush said that protesting lawmakers should understand his approval of the deal was final.

"They ought to listen to what I have to say about this," the president said. "They'll look at the facts and understand the consequences of what they're going to do. But if they pass a law, I'll deal with it with a veto."

Bush, who has never vetoed a bill as president, said on the White House South Lawn:

"This is a company that has played by the rules, has been cooperative with the United States, from a country that's an ally on the war on terror, and it would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through."

Lawmakers from both parties have noted that some of the Sept. 11 hijackers used the United Arab Emirates as an operational and financial base. In addition, critics 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.

They say a port operator complicit in smuggling or terrorism could manipulate manifests and other records to frustrate Homeland Security's already limited scrutiny of shipping containers and slip contraband past U.S. Customs inspectors.

Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y., and Democratic Sen. Schumer said Tuesday they would introduce emergency legislation to suspend the ports deal. King, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, said the government "cannot consider approving this contract until a much more thorough investigation takes place on this security matter."

Sen. Susan Collins (news, bio, voting record), R-Maine, and Rep. Jane Harman (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., said they would introduce a "joint resolution of disapproval" when they returned to Washington next week. Collins heads the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Harman is the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

Frist said Congress should have veto authority over such foreign sales, which are reviewed by a secretive U.S. panel that considers security risks of foreign companies buying or investing in American industry. The panel includes representatives from the departments of Treasury, Defense, Justice, Commerce, State and Homeland Security.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld described the United Arab Emirates as a close ally. "It's a country that's been involved in the global war on terror with us," Rumsfeld said. He added that the United States and the UAE "have very close military-to-miltary relations, as well as political and economic relations."

Separately, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said port security would not be threatened. "This is not a question about port security," Gonzales said. "This is a question about port operation."

 

[3113]

Separately, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said port security would not be threatened. "This is not a question about port security," Gonzales said. "This is a question about port operation."

(Raises hand) "Um, Prof. Foreskin, I don't think I understand what Mr. Gonzales is saying there. What's the difference between port security and port operation? Isn't one kinda dependent on the other?"

 

[rgraham666]

(Raises hand) "Um, Prof. Foreskin, I don't think I understand what Mr. Gonzales is saying there. What's the difference between port security and port operation? Isn't one kinda dependent on the other?"

Not if Mr. Gonzales says it isn't.

That's the nice thing about being in power. Reality is what you say it is. And if people want to keep their jobs and stay out of jail, they go along with it.

Tomorrow, The President is going to stop the tide from rising.

 

[oggbashan]

(Raises hand) "Um, Prof. Foreskin, I don't think I understand what Mr. Gonzales is saying there. What's the difference between port security and port operation? Isn't one kinda dependent on the other?"

No. Peninsular and Orient run port operations in many other places outside the United States. What they do is handle freight (and passengers). The local Customs and Immigration handle the security of the ports. They, and their governments, can and do set the rules about how the Port Operators work to meet the security requirements.

In practice, what will happen at the US ports? The same employees will be doing the same job but for another company. P&O was British. The new owners aren't US either. So what? The employees, except perhaps a few senior managers, will still be US citizens and the ports will be operated within the laws and regulations set by US national and state authorities.

Og