| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Not everybody's sold on the UAE port idea |
| 2006-02-22 |
| Several Bush-administration security officials expressed concerns yesterday that terrorists could infiltrate seaports through a United Arab Emirates company that is vying to manage six U.S. ports. Intelligence and security officials opposed to the deal with Dubai Ports World said ports are vulnerable to the entry of terrorists or illicit weapons because of the large number of containers that enter U.S. territory, regardless of who manages them. A Persian Gulf state such as the United Arab Emirates could provide an infrastructure for terrorists to penetrate U.S. security as part of a major terrorist operation, the officials said. One long-term worry is that al Qaeda terrorists will attempt to smuggle a nuclear device into the United States through a port via a shipping container. Allowing a Middle Eastern company to manage key ports "would be like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse," said one security official, who, like most other critics, spoke on the condition of anonymity. Another official said the problem is not the company but its location in a region rife with Islamic terrorism. "You have to be concerned about a firm from that part of the world managing the ports," this official said. "They are more vulnerable to compromise and penetration by terrorists, even if they are just managing the port." Company officials would be briefed on security procedures and countermeasures that, if compromised, could allow foreign terrorists to get through various screening procedures, the official said. The Coast Guard is responsible for port security, tracking ships, crews and cargo and search vessels based on intelligence. There is no cohesive hiring or screening process for port workers, however. Critics said the port deal reflects the Bush administration's pro-business policy bias. The Treasury Department's point man on the issue, Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt, was described by officials as a liberal Republican who in the past clashed with conservative national-security officials during interagency policy disputes. The United States has 95,000 miles of open shoreline with 361 ports. Annually, about 7,500 ships make about 51,000 port calls and unload more than 6 million shipping containers. Other senior officials, however, reject politically charged claims that the Dubai Ports World purchase of contracts to run ports in New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Newark, N.J., poses a national security risk. At the White House, National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said there are no national security concerns over the Dubai Ports World deal. "This transaction has been incorrectly reported as being about port security or port ownership," Mr. Jones said. "No. It is about managing port operations. Port security remains the shared responsibility of local port authorities, the Department of Homeland Security, the Transportation Department, the Coast Guard and others." The port deal was approved by the Treasury-led Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), in part based on the United Arab Emirates' support for U.S. government activities in the war on terrorism. U.S. intelligence agencies raised "a couple" of national-security issues that were resolved after talks with Dubai Ports World officials, said Treasury spokesman Tony Fratto. The company, he said, provided "verifiable assurances" that the problems would be resolved, but did not elaborate. The contract to manage the ports is not expected to involve large numbers of United Arab Emirates or foreign dock workers, but will involve some United Arab Emirates nationals who are Dubai Ports World managers to direct and oversee port operations. The Department of Homeland Security was the lead agency in supporting the deal, based on past United Arab Emirates cooperation with a U.S.-led shipping container security initiative in Dubai. The CIA operates a base in Dubai, and U.S. military unmanned aerial vehicles also fly out of the Persian Gulf state for intelligence-gathering missions. "It's a country that's been involved in the global war on terror with us; it's a country that we have facilities that we use," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told reporters yesterday. Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also said the U.S. military has close ties to the United Arab Emirates. "In everything that we have asked and work with them on, they have proven to be very, very solid partners," Gen. Pace said. Mr. Rumsfeld said both he and Gen. Pace were unaware of the port-deal security issue until the weekend. The defense secretary said he was reluctant to judge whether the management contracts posed national-security risks because he was not fully informed. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #42 If General Franks said, I'll believe it. However, I'll have to give the Bush administration failing marks for not seeing the tripwire and murphy proofing the issue well before hand. |
| Posted by: Besoeker TROLL 2006-02-22 21:20 |
| #41 Ditto 3dc & Hardliner. Don't you just hate, hate? |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-02-22 18:44 |
| #40 re: #19 - nothing. Your dreams of what the liberal party woulda, coulda, shoulda, been but never was just caused me to wonder out loud, that's all. I noticed you didn't have an answer. That's ok, LH. Good intentions are good enough, eh? |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-02-22 23:17 |
| #39 *poof* Sheesh. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-02-22 21:24 |
| #38 I agree with that, as I said waay back when today. Regards your posts today, if you had been on-topic all day - like this one - and kept your pecker in your pants (taking the high road and shaming the Mods) I'd be begging them and Fred for more tolerance. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-02-22 21:23 |
| #37 Tommy Franks (remember him?) is on Hannity & Colmes and has just trashed the security arguments - he sez it's nothing but politics. Nothing. But. Politics. I am so there, lol. Woot! I be happy. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-02-22 21:13 |
| #36 From Drudge just now: Documents obtained by the AP show the Bush administration's conditions for approving a ports sale required a Dubai company to cooperate with future U.S. investigations and disclose internal operations records on demand... Developing... |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-02-22 21:11 |
| #35 There's a good chance it would be scanned for radiation, bio and chem substances. We've got some pretty awesome sniffers in the major ports IIUC and that sort of thing could -- and I suspect definitely would -- be checked out without breaking any diplomatic protocols. I doubt we have enough of these machines deployed to scan everything that comes into the country -- at this point, anyway. But, a whole lot of amazing R&D happened in the last few years. Expensive, but worth it for this kind of equipment. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-02-22 21:06 |
| #34 Simple question. What happens when an overseas shipping container comes into port with UAE diplomatic seals on it? Yes, I fully intend this as a terrorist bomb importation scenario. While I do not seek to punish all Arab countries, ally and enemy alike, I still think careful consideration should be given to turning over any vital security functions or importation avenues at this point in time. Any worthy ally of ours would understand a delay in handing over the reins. I have simply seen far too much collaboration and collusion between Islamic nations, a lot of it running counter to American interests, to be convinced that relenquishing even a small portion of port security to be a good thing, right now. Yes, I might be over-reacting. Over-reacting is something that could prove to be extremely wise right now. Remember, one nuclear terrorist attack could set us back DECADES. The Dow Jones only recently recovered to where it was pre-9/11. That was subsequent to a mere airliners-into-skyscrapers attack (regardless of how insanely egregious it was). 9/11 cost our nation TRILLIONS in lost economic growth and security expenditures, not even counting the Iraq war. Now imagine the economic devastation of a nuclear terrorist attack. The number QUADRILLION comes to mind. That's a chance I'm not willing to take. I do not think that I am over-reacting. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-02-22 21:04 |
| #33 I say we burn all the Mosskks in the Bohemian Grove! |
| Posted by: 6 2006-02-22 20:51 |
| #32 ;-) Phil. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-02-22 20:24 |
| #31 Some days I feel like I should just quit and go to work for the Illuminati instead. Or maybe the Masons, or Skull and Bones. Maybe they have better pay than the oil patch remote control masters. |
| Posted by: Phil 2006-02-22 20:23 |
| #30 And another thing: Why is it that: * The US won't allow drilling off of the East or West coasts. (including Florida, parts of Alabama, or Virginia). * Or in land areas in CA near the coast (i.e. use directional drilling there) * Or even in ANWR... which is about as wasteland as places get these days... BUT: if anything goes wrong anywhere, it's the All Powerful Oilpatch doing things? The left blames it for our going to war in the mideast, and now I see guys on the "right" blaming it for anything they see as lax prosecution of the war. (Note I put "right" in quotation marks.) Maybe it's just me, I work in it, but I don't see the mythical superpowerful conspiracy everyone else does here. |
| Posted by: Phil 2006-02-22 20:21 |
| #29 And another thing: Why is it that: * The US won't allow drilling off of the East or West coasts. (including Florida, parts of Alabama, or Virginia). * Or in land areas in CA near the coast (i.e. use directional drilling there) * Or even in ANWR... which is about as wasteland as places get these days... BUT: if anything goes wrong anywhere, it's the All Powerful Oilpatch doing things? The left blames it for our going to war in the mideast, and now I see guys on the "right" blaming it for anything they see as lax prosecution of the war. (Note I put "right" in quotation marks.) Maybe it's just me, I work in it, but I don't see the mythical superpowerful conspiracy everyone else does here. |
| Posted by: Phil 2006-02-22 19:41 |
| #28 What is your position on UAE control of US ports? Am I the only one here who believes that Bush Jr is an overachieving rich brat, who is under oil patch remote control? Who is "CaziFarkus"? Could be CrazyFools alter ego. I sometimes wonder if everyone who bitches about the oil patch has really thought about the long-term effects of outsourcing the whole thing to other countries. |
| Posted by: Phil 2006-02-22 19:00 |
| #27 That link function doesn't always work. www.alminbar.com/khutbaheng/823.html Muslims love us, and we love them. |
| Posted by: Hardliner 2006-02-22 18:13 |
| #26 6: Wow a number! Easy on the hate. I'm sensitive. Muslims show the love: If I made just one person happy, it was worth it. |
| Posted by: Hardliner 2006-02-22 18:11 |
| #25 Careful Hardliner a friendly Bilderberger told me ZOG may repo your Pat Buchanan love doll. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-02-22 17:07 |
| #24 We, the American People, have never been permitted, by our owners, to have a honest and forthright discussion about "free trade", borders, out sourcing, multi-nationals and the whole nine yards. When Perot mentioned "sucking" both sides murdered him and discussion was halted. Same for Anderson. Same for the Hippies in the 60s ... Same for any dissent from the offical game plan. Now it begins to bite. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2006-02-22 16:43 |
| #23 Leave the hate at home or take it somewhere other than Rantburg. Anger, snark, sarcasm, insightful analysis - welcome. Hate - not. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-02-22 16:17 |
| #22 lotp: What is your position on UAE control of US ports? Am I the only one here who believes that Bush Jr is an overachieving rich brat, who is under oil patch remote control? Who is "CaziFarkus"? Could be CrazyFool's alter ego. I hate carpet humpers. |
| Posted by: Hardliner 2006-02-22 16:15 |
| #21 "Hardliner" is, of course, CaziFartus. Yup. Moonbats from both ends of the spectrum are out in broad daylight today. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-02-22 14:28 |
| #20 Do not feed the troll. |
| Posted by: Mike 2006-02-22 14:23 |
| #19 2b what exactly does that have to do with the question i asked? |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-02-22 14:22 |
| #18 " LH - re: Clinton, probably so, because we suspect his reasons. There would be $ for Hillary's campaign, that trailer-trash library, a couple promised speaking engagements at huge $..." Wrong Frank, Clinton took money from Red China, the Wahabi money goes to Bush, via Grover Norquist. :) |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-02-22 14:20 |
| #17 "Hardliner" is, of course, CaziFartus. And it's not "End of story" - or haven't you the capacity to take in information as it develops, comprehend it, and then change (if necessary) your knee-jerk first-blush opinion? You're much smarter than that - or some of your posts have led me to believe. Is this just a bubble of your quiescent BDS breaking through? I had, recently, begun to give you credit for shedding that mantle of irrationality. Sad, this. |
| Posted by: Whoper Ebbolulet9339 2006-02-22 14:13 |
| #16 the UAE was, along with Saudi and Pakiland one of only three countries that recognized the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. End of story. We are at war. We need to retain close control of our ports. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-02-22 13:53 |
| #15 $10,000 for any lie that appears below. After the Arbusto fiasco, Bush Jr joined a consortium that drilled several oil wells in the UAE, with no luck. Still he was able to pocket $1,500,000 from the failed venture. As President, he has never condemned terror financing from either the UAE or the Saud terrorist entity in face of the fact that said financing facilitated both the 9-11 massacres, and the current terror attacks against US troops in Iraq. Further, in the domestic front, his administration pays consultation fees to the Islamic Society of North America, notwithstanding their distribution of Wahabi hate tracts in the 80% of US mosques that have received Saudi financial support. Bush's see no evil aproach to America's mortal enemies - which runs counter to mainstream Evangelical beliefs - reveals that he puts his personal post-administration interests over those of his country. I know Rantburg - especially lotp who cut over a dozen of the ever compliant Robert Crawford's posts last week - censors any criticism of Bush, even though the President is taking heat from all other conservative, evangelical and military hardline sources. The program appears to favor grassroots Republican pressure on the President. What is your program? Google some of recent news reports on Karen Hughes' fellatial public diplomacy conducted in enemy States. Why would you want to be associated with that slavish dhimmism? Do you believe it covers some tactical genius? I will tell you Bush's grand strategy: trying to look and act resolute to the sheepish masses, in preparation for serving himself to the Saudi wolves, post Presidency. Bush Jr is a slave. |
| Posted by: Hardliner 2006-02-22 13:46 |
| #14 "Which is it ? Some muzzies with us , or all muzzies bad ?" Well...until I see some of the "good muzzies" stand up and be counted instead of just paying lip service, all muzzies bad! The end-game is clear to see for those who will look. It is past time to get it on! |
| Posted by: Nuck Fozzle2168 2006-02-22 11:18 |
| #13 That is the problem LH all Americans see are bad muslims never any of the good things they do and American people are beginnings not to like muslims. That will be the start and the war will begin in earnest and hatred on both sides will probably kill millions of muslims. War of attrition we are only at the beginning it is going to get ugly. |
| Posted by: djohn66 2006-02-22 11:02 |
| #12 hey liberalhawk...I'm trying to think of just one really good idea that liberals have bestowed us with since 1960. I can't think of any, can you? When I think of liberals I think of reasons for this current war on terror, ie: the belief we are weak and will run. I think of the peace love generation whose great ideas of compassion were nothing more than vacant political promises that threw beads and whiskey at the down and out and destroyed the fabric of their society, leaving them in a worse state than if they had left them alone all together. I think of the Peace movement and Pol Pot. I think of health care in terms of how the libearls idolize Castro for his crappy (but free) health care system. I think of liberal newspapers as being anything but a free press. I could go on - but is there anything at all that liberals can be proud of - except perhaps legal abortion? |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-02-22 10:22 |
| #11 LH - re: Clinton, probably so, because we suspect his reasons. There would be $ for Hillary's campaign, that trailer-trash library, a couple promised speaking engagements at huge $... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-02-22 10:00 |
| #10 I have no idea if this is a good idea or a bad idea. But I am suspicious when the democrats support an idea and use it to bash republicans just because all of their ideas for the past half century have sucked so horribly bad. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-02-22 09:59 |
| #9 i lean towards y'all that this deal should be allowed. Of course deep in my heart i suspect that if President Clinton (you fill in the first name) had oked this, youd all be ranting and raving about treason, mythical moderate muslims, etc, etc. "Not only that, but if you subscribe to the belief that not all muzzies are bad, then somewhere, sometime you must include those considered good as partners in this WOT and treat them as such. Which is it ? Some muzzies with us , or all muzzies bad ?" And doesnt the reverse apply as well? I mean the UAE was, along with Saudi and Pakiland one of only three countries that recognized the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Indonesia didnt. Jordan didnt. Albania didnt. etc, etc. Yet call those countries "moderate" and ive got a pack of rampaging loonies all over me. Yet now UAE, which is not more moderate than the govt of Pakistan, and hardly more moderate than the govt of Saudi Arabia, is now a valued ally. Well which is it? Are moderate muslim mythical, or not? |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-02-22 09:52 |
| #8 Not only that, but if you subscribe to the belief that not all muzzies are bad, then somewhere, sometime you must include those considered good as partners in this WOT and treat them as such. Which is it ? Some muzzies with us , or all muzzies bad ? |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-02-22 09:29 |
| #7 Where were all these people when the American merchant marine was regulated out of business? Or, for that matter, when we exported the oilfield to the Middle East in the mid-80's? Oh, sure, they'll tell you all day long they support the replacement of the oilfield with Pixie Dust, which they'll have in just a few short years once the Nasty Conspiratorialists in the domestic oilfield get out the way... ...which is just another way of blaming the locals for the fact that you want to import from salafists instead. |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2006-02-22 09:27 |
| #6 P&O, the British company that Dubai Port is buying, operates terminals in six American ports. Some of these terminals are alongside terminals operated by the Danish company Moller. In the Port of Los Angeles, one of the terminals is operated by a Chinese firm. Corpus Christi has had both a Spanish company and a Filipino company in its port. The frieght comes from all over the world. The ships come from all over the world. The seamen come from all over the world. None of that would change. American Port Operations Port Security |
| Posted by: Chuck Simmins 2006-02-22 09:01 |
| #5 Love ya' Ptah, and I understand your concerns. But check out the comments at Gateway Pundit for another perspective on this deal. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-02-22 08:41 |
| #4 I call for official co-privatization of domestic security, as called for in the Second Amendment. NMM appeals only to the Ignorant by blatantly lying about what Conservatives and Bush actually stand for. Can't demonize them if you stick to the truth. Must use wild-ass extrapolations based on fevered and blind faith in socialist-communist-marxist political, social, and economic analysis that has murdered more people than Hitler. Failed thinking that, when implemented in real-life, necessitates expanded and uncritical welfare to sustain the adherents thereto. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2006-02-22 08:09 |
| #3 The company owning the management and operations aspects of the port is essentially irrelevent to security. The company will be making decisions about which piers to put what equipment on; the charges for berthing; the hours of operation, etc. The inspections, surveillance, etc. are all regulated by the Coast Guard, TSA, Maritime Administration, COEngineers, etc. And all the actual loading, unloading, dispatching, etc. are done by the same dockworkers that would be there no matter who owned the port management company. I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with Jimmy Carter, John McCain and the Washingtop Post (although for different reasons). |
| Posted by: mhw 2006-02-22 07:59 |
| #2 Sure. Why not, NMM? After all, the Democrats outsourced their domestic policy to the Social Democrats and their foreign policy to the Tranzis years ago. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2006-02-22 01:22 |
| #1 I know I have been missed--but in the spirit of free enterprise--so valued by the GOP--why don't we let the Country of Yemen take over the TSA? Maybe we can outsource security for Amtrak to Saudi Arabia? It all makes sense, since the private sector is the solution! I guess Kinda Sleezy Rice REALLY does want to see that mushroom cloud over Manhattan since only 20% of the populace there bought her bosses lies! |
| Posted by: Not MIKE Moore 2006-02-22 01:14 |