WTF? Homeland Security Is Putting Our Ports At More Risk

[Annie]

Truly this administration is nuts when it comes to our borders and 'friends'. Put an Islamic company, from United Arab Emirites in charge? When I find myself agreeing with Schumer, they are way, way off!

February 12, 2006 -- The city's ports, considered a major target of terrorists, are about to be taken over by a firm based in the United Arab Emirates, a country with financial links to the Sept. 11 hijackers.

Dubai Ports World is set to complete a $6.8 billion deal to purchase Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., a London company that already runs commercial port operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans and Miami.

If shareholders approve the deal tomorrow, it will give control of various dock operations at some of the country's busiest points of entry to UAE-headquartered DP World.

The FBI has said most of the money for the 2001 terror attacks was funneled to hijackers through UAE banks, and much of the planning took place in the small but rich nation east of Saudi Arabia.

Steven Coleman, a spokesman for the Port Authority, said the deal is still under review but noted it only involved the management of one port terminal in New Jersey.

Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer urged the Bush administration to reconsider the sale.

"We should be very careful before we outsource such sensitive homeland security duties," Schumer said.

Despite these concerns, the move has been given the stamp of approval by the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, an arm of the Treasury Department.

The CFI "thoroughly reviewed the potential transaction and concluded they had no objection," said a DP World official.

The committee earlier agreed to consider concerns about the deal expressed by Miami-based Eller & Co., according to Eller's lawyer, Michael Kreitzer. Eller is a business partner with the British shipping giant.

"When you have a foreign government involved, you are injecting foreign national interests," Kreitzer said. "A country that may be a friend of ours today may not be on the same side tomorrow." With Post Wire Services

[email protected]

 

[Gunny]

Greed has no conscience.

 

[Annie]

Greed has no conscience.

Not sure what greed has to do with this. My guess, more like they're thinking, "If we give this contract to 'them', perhaps we'll have less trouble from UAE." Just like Yemen, that has now let the mastermind of USS Cole bombing 'escape.' Working real well...

 

[Gunny]

Not sure what greed has to do with this. My guess, more like they're thinking, "If we give this contract to 'them', perhaps we'll have less trouble from UAE." Just like Yemen, that has now let the mastermind of USS Cole bombing 'escape.' Working real well...

Greed as in "corporate greed." Selling out to a Middle Eastern company to squeeze an extra buck with no regard for who and/or what it's being sold to.

 

[Annie]

Greed as in "corporate greed." Selling out to a Middle Eastern company to squeeze an extra buck with no regard for who and/or what it's being sold to.

Maybe I'm not getting it, but since it's the government spending money, trying to save a few dollars just doesn't ring right with me. Sounds more like the thinking of the State Department.

 

[Gunny]

Maybe I'm not getting it, but since it's the government spending money, trying to save a few dollars just doesn't ring right with me. Sounds more like the thinking of the State Department.

If shareholders approve the deal tomorrow, it will give control of various dock operations at some of the country's busiest points of entry to UAE-headquartered DP World.

I was commenting on this. Shareholders are the ones who are going to approve/disapprove the deal.

 

[dilloduck]

I would have to know a little more about the company who actually runs the security. Being called and based in Dubai may not mean much.

 

[Adam's Apple]

I trust Gaffney. If he says this is a lame-brained idea and a bad deal, it is.

Port of Entry
By Frank Gaffney, Jr., Center for Security Policy
February 14, 2006

(Washington, D.C.): How would you feel if, in the aftermath of 9/11, the U.S. government had decided to contract out airport security to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the country where most of the operational planning and financing of the attacks occurred? It seems a safe bet that you, like most Americans, would think it a lunatic idea, one that could clear the way for still more terror in this country. You probably would want to know who on earth approved such a plan--and be determined to prevent it from happening.

If the President will not, Congress must ensure that the United Arab Emirates is not entrusted with the operation of any American ports, and that the Treasury Department is stripped of the lead role in evaluating such dubious foreign investments in the United States.

for full article:
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=today

 

[Mr. P]

And I thought allowing control of the panama to China was a major error by this Country. But NOW…..
No attempt to secure the borders, and now to allow the fox to guard the hen house? Hell, we're even gonna leave the door open and the light on!

Have we reached the INCOMPETANT level YET?

I think maybe.

 

[Fmr jarhead]

The ports are currently being run by an international company, based out of London. It has already been done, it is not under US control (as far as the business end goes....) Maybe a little socialism would fix the problem....we could socialize the program, spend $7 billion of taxpayer money, and let the same people who run the DMV or the IRS take care of the ports....I know I would sleep better at night.

Security would still be handled by local authorities (NY/NJ Port Authority, and other port policing programs that are already in place....both local and federally)

I think this has more to do with politics than actual business.....the spin by the anti-corporate yahoos seems to be winning, this time.....

If it were little green men with big almond shaped eyes, I am sure that there would be some other reason for opposing it, as well....

There are many very moderate, intelligent and savvy businessmen (and women) from the UAE who do not subscribe to the radical islamic murderer's beliefs (in fact, it is the majority)

Should agnostics fear ALL Christians because a couple of NUT JOBS go around assassinating doctors and blowing up abortion clinics......c'mon, people, use a little common sense.

We are not "outsourcing" our security or intelligence.....if a better offer were to come along for the London based company, I am sure they would consider it, but it would have to make good business sense.

Do you know who runs and operates the ports of the following locations.....now at greater risk of attack, becuase of some silly cartoons drawn in their country? I think this should contribute more to our fear than anything else....

North America
Baltimore
Charleston
Houston
Jacksonville
Los Angeles
Miami
New Orleans
Oakland
Port Elizabeth
Port Everglades
Portsmouth
Savannah
Tacoma

Caribbean & Latin America
Buenos Aires
Itajai
Kingston

West & Central Asia
Aqaba
Nhava Sheva
Port Qasim
Pipavav
Salalah


Europe
Aarhus
Algeciras
Bremerhaven
Constantza
Gioia Tauro
Rotterdam
Zeebrugge

Africa
Abidjan
Douala
Onne Port
Port Said
Tangier

South East & North Asia
Kaohsiung
Kobe
Laem Chabang
Tanjung Pelepas
Shanghai
Yokohama

BTW...the company is Maersk (parent company of APM Terminals from Denmark.

 

[Annie]

And here is a bit more on UAE:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/006359.php

Dubai is part of the United Arab Emirates, a collection of authoritarian regimes considered friendly to the US and the West. However, UAE has had its troubles with Islamists in the past, as Michelle points out. In fact, the 9/11 Commission notes UAE involvement in Islamist terrorism in several spots.

Page 138:

"Even after Bin Ladin’s departure from the area, CIA officers hoped he might return, seeing the camp as a magnet that could draw him for as long as it was still set up.The military maintained readiness for another strike opportunity.160 On March 7, 1999, [Richard] Clarke called a UAE official to express his concerns about possible associations between Emirati officials and Bin Ladin.Clarke later wrote in a memorandum of this conversation that the call had been approved at an interagency meeting and cleared with the CIA." [This involved Clarke blowing a cover on a covert operation.]​

Page 167:

"In early 2000,Atta, Jarrah, and Binalshibh returned to Hamburg. Jarrah arrived first, on January 31, 2000.97 According to Binalshibh, he and Atta left Kandahar together and proceeded first to Karachi, where they met KSM and were instructed by him on security and on living in the United States. Shehhi apparently had already met with KSM before returning to the UAE.Atta returned to Hamburg in late February, and Binalshibh arrived shortly thereafter. Shehhi’s travels took him to the UAE (where he acquired a new passport and a U.S. visa), Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and one or more other destinations."​

Page 171:

"Bin Ladin relied on the established hawala networks operating in Pakistan, in Dubai, and throughout the Middle East to transfer funds efficiently."
​

Page 216:

"On June 20, Hanjour returned home to Saudi Arabia. He obtained a U.S. student visa on September 25 and told his family he was returning to his job in the UAE. Hanjour did go to the UAE, but to meet facilitator Ali Abdul
Aziz Ali.62"​

Page 224:

"The Hamburg operatives paid for their flight training primarily with funds wired from Dubai by KSM’s nephew,Ali Abdul Aziz Ali. Between June 29 and September 17, 2000,Ali sent Shehhi and Atta a total of $114,500 in five transfers ranging from $5,000 to $70,000."​

Page 236:

"After training in Afghanistan, the operatives went to a safehouse maintained by KSM in Karachi and stayed there temporarily before being deployed to the United States via the UAE. ... 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."​

In fact, many of the 9/11 hijackers transited through the UAE, and a significant amount of al-Qaeda cash came through UAE-based accounts. If they run their own country's borders so poorly, why would we trust them to run ours? The White House needs to deep-six this deal, or cancel the contracts and re-bid them. Putting our ports in the hands of Arab authoritarians isn't just putting the fox in charge of the henhouse, it's tantamount to cooking him eggs for breakfast every morning and bringing him KFC for supper every night.
Posted by Captain Ed at February 16, 2006 10:59 PM

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

i'm amazed that people who complained over this are the same people who didn't and still don't give two shits the the fact that clinton turned over the panama canal to a chinese company with links to the chinese military. they can close it to us shipping and warships at the drop of a hat. even worse they can sabatoge a ship as it passes through.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Kathianne,
Your post does not make sense to me. There are probably terrorist organizations in every country on the planet, but that doesn't mean we embargo the world. The UAE is one of the most forward thinking, progressive Middle-Eastern countries. Its the "Hong Kong of the Middle East" so to speak. They are currently planning to build the Burg al Arab, the world's tallest building, just to name one thing. Over half the population of the UAE is not arab muslims, the majority comes from other Asian countries like India, the Phillipines, and China. I would be surprised if these other ethnic groups weren't involved. Most importantly the arguement you post makes no since to me. Would you not hire a policeman from North Carolina because Eric Rudolph had hid there? What your doing is writing of an entire nation based on the actions of an incredibly small group.

 

[Annie]

Kathianne,
Your post does not make sense to me. There are probably terrorist organizations in every country on the planet, but that doesn't mean we embargo the world. The UAE is one of the most forward thinking, progressive Middle-Eastern countries. Its the "Hong Kong of the Middle East" so to speak. They are currently planning to build the Burg al Arab, the world's tallest building, just to name one thing. Over half the population of the UAE is not arab muslims, the majority comes from other Asian countries like India, the Phillipines, and China. I would be surprised if these other ethnic groups weren't involved. Most importantly the arguement you post makes no since to me. Would you not hire a policeman from North Carolina because Eric Rudolph had hid there? What your doing is writing of an entire nation based on the actions of an incredibly small group.

There is no reason to hire outside of our country in order to protect sensitive areas within. Now, if we are hiring to protect something in another land, fine, hire natives.

I our 'own' people commit a crime, they'll be arrested and tried under our laws, without protests from others.

 

[Annie]

i'm amazed that people who complained over this are the same people who didn't and still don't give two shits the the fact that clinton turned over the panama canal to a chinese company with links to the chinese military. they can close it to us shipping and warships at the drop of a hat. even worse they can sabatoge a ship as it passes through.

Hmm, using the 9/11 commission report is related how?

 

[Mr. P]

i'm amazed that people who complained over this are the same people who didn't and still don't give two shits the the fact that clinton turned over the panama canal to a chinese company with links to the chinese military. they can close it to us shipping and warships at the drop of a hat. even worse they can sabatoge a ship as it passes through.

Clinton? Not really.

Jimmy Carter signed The Panama Canal Treaty, which provided that, from 12 pm on December 31, 1999, Panama would assume full control of canal operations and become primarily responsible for its defense. I suppose whoever they want to bring in is up to them at that point.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

Hmm, using the 9/11 commission report is related how?

and how is a foriegn company going to put or ports at risk? what are they going to do fire every american and hire only arabs to do the job and have a memo that says let this ship and these people in because we say so? it doesn't matter whos in control of the ports if we don't want a ship to enter our waters we don't.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

Clinton? Not really.

Jimmy Carter signed The Panama Canal Treaty, which provided that, from 12 pm on December 31, 1999, Panama would assume full control of canal operations and become primarily responsible for its defense. I suppose whoever they want to bring in is up to them at that point.

and clinton could have delayed it once it was known the chinese were now going to control one of the most important waters ways in the world not just for us trade but or national security. he didn't even raise an eyebrow.

 

[Annie]

and how is a foriegn company going to put or ports at risk? what are they going to do fire every american and hire only arabs to do the job and have a memo that says let this ship and these people in because we say so? it doesn't matter whos in control of the ports if we don't want a ship to enter our waters we don't.

It just doesn't make sense to put sensitive areas in the control of foreigners, either by workers or management. The same would hold for nuclear or other power facilities; water management; etc. Schumer is right on this, the administration should listen to the people that are writing them and our representatives. IF you feel it's a great idea, write them that.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

some power companies are already owned by forgien companies. its the ships not the ports that are the problem. even then you can screen all the ships and cargo you want but that doesn't stop someone from jumping over board in the harbor which happens all the time. the southern boarder is more of a concern then who owns what