Balta1701 Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 So, I'm not sure if this is the worst thing in human history, but it sure doesn't look too good on the surface. (Linked even to Fox News to make the Republicans happy) Questioning the United Arab Emirates' track record in the War on Terror, seven U.S. lawmakers said Thursday they want a committee led by Treasury Secretary John Snow to thoroughly review a deal that would let a UAE-based firm run six major U.S. ports. "We're calling for the full six-week investigation. It's a serious investigation and the reason why this is critical is while maybe there's nothing wrong with this company, how do we know they're not infiltrated?" asked Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "The United Arab Emirates has had people involved in terrorism. In fact, some of its financial institutions laundered the money for the (Sept, 11) terrorists. And to just blithely go ahead and treat this as another economic transaction is all wrong." Currently, London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., the fourth largest port operator in the world, runs the six ports. But the $6.8 million sale of P&O to UAE-owned Dubai Ports World (DPW) would effectively turn over North American operations to the government-owned company in Dubai. If the approval is unchallenged, Dubai Ports World would run the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. On Monday, the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), chaired by Snow, approved the P&O sale. The committee conducted a 30-day review, according to lawmakers. According to the letter itself: – The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. – The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia. – According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system. – After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 If Im reading this right this deal f***ing stinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 17, 2006 -> 12:20 PM) If Im reading this right this deal f***ing stinks. I'd have to agree. Security would still be run by the US but it seems like it sends the wrong messages in a number of ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Who the f*** thought this was a good idea?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vandy125 Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Not good at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Yeah, I'd say that this warrants some serious investigation. I'm not ususally one to hold bias against a country like this, but in this case, I think its prudent. UAE, at best, can't get itself secured, and at worst, may be complicit in terror. A UAE government-run company managing 6 of our ports? Bad idea. One clarification, Balta - the thread title is misleading. The port isn't being bought - its management organization is being bought. The physical place still belongs to the US or private interests, as far as I can tell. Just a small thing, but worth noting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Yeah for budget cuts!@!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 17, 2006 Author Share Posted February 17, 2006 QUOTE(Wong & Owens @ Feb 17, 2006 -> 09:27 AM) Who the f*** thought this was a good idea?! Supposedly, this is the makeup of the committee that did the "Approval", whatever was involved in it: The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, the Department of Homeland Security, the Secretaries of State, Defense, and Commerce, the Attorney General, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the U.S. Trade Representative, and the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. The Committee is chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury. Here's the page of the committee that approved it. Key part: Section 5021 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 amended Section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 to provide authority to the President to suspend or prohibit any foreign acquisition, merger or takeover of a U.S. corporation that is determined to threaten the national security of the United States. The President can exercise this authority under section 721 (also known as the "Exon-Florio provision") to block a foreign acquisition of a U.S. corporation only if he finds: (1) there is credible evidence that the foreign entity exercising control might take action that threatens national security, and (2) the provisions of law, other than the International Emergency Economic Powers Act do not provide adequate and appropriate authority to protect the national security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 17, 2006 Author Share Posted February 17, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 17, 2006 -> 09:29 AM) Yeah, I'd say that this warrants some serious investigation. I'm not ususally one to hold bias against a country like this, but in this case, I think its prudent. UAE, at best, can't get itself secured, and at worst, may be complicit in terror. A UAE government-run company managing 6 of our ports? Bad idea. One clarification, Balta - the thread title is misleading. The port isn't being bought - its management organization is being bought. The physical place still belongs to the US or private interests, as far as I can tell. Just a small thing, but worth noting. If one of the Moderators thinks that's important they can change it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 17, 2006 -> 12:29 PM) Yeah, I'd say that this warrants some serious investigation. I'm not ususally one to hold bias against a country like this, but in this case, I think its prudent. UAE, at best, can't get itself secured, and at worst, may be complicit in terror. A UAE government-run company managing 6 of our ports? Bad idea. One clarification, Balta - the thread title is misleading. The port isn't being bought - its management organization is being bought. The physical place still belongs to the US or private interests, as far as I can tell. Just a small thing, but worth noting. It's OK to be biased against a whole country in this instance, because only like 37 people live there, they have a pre-capita income of $20 million-- and they're all bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 17, 2006 -> 12:31 PM) If one of the Moderators thinks that's important they can change it. Not that big a deal, I was more just pointing it out as part of framing the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 I am certain the Bush Administration has looked into this, and if they are comfortable, then I am. I can't believe they went into this blindly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 17, 2006 -> 05:38 PM) I am certain the Bush Administration has looked into this, and if they are comfortable, then I am. I can't believe they went into this blindly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 20, 2006 Author Share Posted February 20, 2006 Former DHS Director Tom Ridge thinks the White House needs to better explain its justification for this deal. Meanwhile...current DHS Director Chertoff's explanation about why Congress and the American people shouldn't be worried about this? "That's classified". Chertoff defended the security review of Dubai Ports World of the United Arab Emirates, the company given permission to take over the port operations. Chertoff said the government typically builds in "certain conditions or requirements that the company has to agree to make sure we address the national security concerns." But Chertoff declined to discuss specifics saying that information is classified. Congress is supposedly planning to hold hearings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish71 Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 (edited) The idea that someone thought this was a good idea is f***ing stupid. Companies in the UAE managing our ports is akin to companies managed by Vincente Fox watching the Mexican/American border. Scud Missles will be over here in no time in a container labeled fruit. Edited February 20, 2006 by southsideirish71 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 17, 2006 -> 03:12 PM) Just like I still believe there were WMD in Iraq, poised and ready. BTW, it will still have US Customs agents all over the place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 20, 2006 Author Share Posted February 20, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 20, 2006 -> 09:38 AM) BTW, it will still have US Customs agents all over the place. We have border patrol agents all over the Mexican border too. And I bet that in 2001, there were a few security personnel at Logan airport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 20, 2006 -> 11:40 AM) We have border patrol agents all over the Mexican border too. And I bet that in 2001, there were a few security personnel at Logan airport. There is a difference with a port. They are inspecting cargo, matching manifests, etc. Far different than patrolling a remote desert locations trying to find something hidden, *and* able to think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 I almost wonder if this is some sort of "undercover" deal... if you know what I mean. Of course, now, it probably doesn't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Tizzle Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 20, 2006 -> 11:48 AM) I almost wonder if this is some sort of "undercover" deal... if you know what I mean. I could guess, but I'm interested in what you believe. Is this some sort of undercover deal, in your mind, whereby controlling port operations in our country UAE removes itself from sponsoring terrorists? Edited February 20, 2006 by Flash Tizzle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 That's not it. Dubai Ports World bought out a british company that runs the ports now, P&O Shipping out of the U.K. We just gave regulatory approval. The only problem I have with this deal is that the company is state owned. It's sort of like giving up a little sovereignty over these ports and I'm not really comfortable with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 20, 2006 -> 07:13 PM) That's not it. Dubai Ports World bought out a british company that runs the ports now, P&O Shipping out of the U.K. We just gave regulatory approval. The only problem I have with this deal is that the company is state owned. It's sort of like giving up a little sovereignty over these ports and I'm not really comfortable with that. Indeed. The deal originiated from a buyout that UAE did over the British company. We already had given the sovereignty away... On the surface, the deal is a GREAT one economically. Politically, that's another story. I think that there's definitely some wink-wink nod-nodding going on to have gotten regulatory approval, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 20, 2006 Author Share Posted February 20, 2006 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 20, 2006 -> 11:33 AM) Indeed. The deal originiated from a buyout that UAE did over the British company. We already had given the sovereignty away... On some level though, isn't there a difference in the amount of concern we have about the British working with a hostile power compared with the UAE doing so? If, for example, a hypothetical British company, let's call them British Petrol, were to have tried to buy a major U.S. energy producer, let's call them Hamoco, the way CNOOC tried to buy one, do you think we'd have had nearly as many problems as we did with the CNOOC deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 20, 2006 -> 07:36 PM) On some level though, isn't there a difference in the amount of concern we have about the British working with a hostile power compared with the UAE doing so? If, for example, a hypothetical British company, let's call them British Petrol, were to have tried to buy a major U.S. energy producer, let's call them Hamoco, the way CNOOC tried to buy one, do you think we'd have had nearly as many problems as we did with the CNOOC deal? Oh, I hear you. My comment was saying that economically this is a good deal. Politcally, this is horrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Jimmy Carter is siding with GWB on this one... http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/...miherald_nation If Jimmy Carter says it's ok, then it is ABSOLUTELY the wrong decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts