Dubai Ports selling out

[YASNY]

But what makes me SICK is the damn Democrats running for the tv cameras today EVEN AFTER THE DEAL IS DEAD demanding a vote. 

 

That's asshole politics at its finest.

 

Someone stole their thunder ... and they want it back.

[kapkomet]

Someone stole their thunder ... and they want it back.

 

A MIGHTY goes out to Congress on this whole thing. It was a race for these sniveling assholes to "kill the deal first". Wha wha wha wha wha, sniff, sniff, "WE killed the deal FIRST!"...

 

although the deal may have needed to be killed, that's not the point. As usual, these assholes had to step all over each other to do it first, and then when the House Republicans did it first, the Democrats had to run for the cameras DEMANDING a vote. What a bunch of lugnut, idiotic assholes.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Someone stole their thunder ... and they want it back.

 

Honestly though, what does it actually mean to say that the "deal is dead"? There are no details yet as to how it's all going to resolve, so as much as any of this was ever "thunder," it still will be for a while.

[kapkomet]

And I see Flaxx posting, but I also want to add a shout out to our President on this one. This illustrates when the people get ahold of a s*** bomb, don't try to cram it down our throats. "Oh YEA, wha wha wha wha,.... I'll just VETO you if you kill this deal..." That was probably WORSE then what Congress did. At least they represented the people on this issue. But I don't like the political s*** that went with it.

[FlaSoxxJim]

And I see Flaxx posting, but I also want to add a shout out to our President on this one.  This illustrates when the people get ahold of a s*** bomb, don't try to cram it down our throats.  "Oh YEA, wha wha wha wha,.... I'll just VETO you if you kill this deal..."  That was probably WORSE then what Congress did.  At least they represented the people on this issue.  But I don't like the political s*** that went with it.

Well it certainly did give Congress a winning strategy - let's see you veto it when we slip it into your war spending bill Mr. President.

[NorthSideSox72]

Someone stole their thunder ... and they want it back.

Yup.

[Mplssoxfan]

But what makes me SICK is the damn Democrats running for the tv cameras today EVEN AFTER THE DEAL IS DEAD demanding a vote. 

 

That's asshole politics at its finest.

 

Apparently, the House is voting on the deal anyway. And I doubt the House leadership is caving in to Democratic demands.

[mr_genius]

of course they want a vote.

 

now, for their campaign comercials, than can add this vote to their "excellent" voting record on national security.

 

btw, blocking this deal might have been a really bad idea.

[Mplssoxfan]

of course they want a vote.

 

now, for their campaign comercials, than can add this vote to their "excellent" voting record on national security.

 

btw, blocking this deal might have been a really bad idea.

I've been working my way to that conclusion, myself, my friend.

[Rex Kickass]

It's only a bad idea if we don't kick all the other foreign interests out of controlling our exit and entry points to this country.

[kapkomet]

It's only a bad idea if we don't kick all the other foreign interests out of controlling our exit and entry points to this country.

That was NOT what this was about.

[FlaSoxxJim]

That was NOT what this was about.

 

No it wasn't, at least on it's face. But as none of us really knew or appreciated that 75% + of port ops were by run foreign companies, I think this is a relevant added dimension.

 

And it goes beyond left, right, Bushco, etc., and gets to the heart of an actual national security concern - not a manufactured propaganda item by any side. We all concur that the ports are probably THE weak link in national security. We all understood that at best 10% of containers were inspected and there was some radiation detection, etc. But nobody - at least not me - really appreciated how much day today control of the ports we don't have.

 

Certainly it needs to be addressed. Difficult, yes, since we don't have many companies equipped to do the job. But here is a real security issue whose practices and protocols really need some review and likely overhaul. And maybe that will be the tangible positive that came out of the UAE Ports World bruhaha.

[southsider2k5]

of course they want a vote.

 

now, for their campaign comercials, than can add this vote to their "excellent" voting record on national security.

 

btw, blocking this deal might have been a really bad idea.

 

The UAE is really pissed off about this. They have already put off voting on a free trade agreement, and they are making noises about taking their investments somewhere else.

[kapkomet]

The UAE is really pissed off about this.  They have already put off voting on a free trade agreement, and they are making noises about taking their investments somewhere else.

I've alluded to this before - I've had some (slight) business dealings with people in the UAE... and this is something that is NOT good.

 

People have taken this and just absolutely ran whacky with it. Flaxx has propagated what the problem really is.

 

Look, it doesn't matter WHO OWNS the port, security is OUR problem. WE are in charge of how the ports are ran, no matter WHO OWNS them. But gee, somehow all that gets overlooked. Why? Because this was blatent racism by this country. It was Islamaphobia. And it's f***ING SICK.

 

I understand the fact that UAE has some serious issues - ie they DO have terrorist connections, they DO NOT recognize Israel, they are participating in a ban of business with Israel, etc. etc. etc. and yes this is problematic. Something needed to be done, however, you don't want to cut your nose off to spite itself, and we just did that.

 

Sometime, if anyone cares, I can share my experience in dealing with Dubai business folks. It was pretty interesting the exchanges.

[Rex Kickass]

Look, I'm all for uniformity. We have a law that says that the federal government will not do business with a company that refuses to do business with Israel. This deal violates that law.

 

We say we won't deal with terrorists, or states who sponsor terrorism - yet the UAE has done just that. Why should they get special treatment. Oh yeah, economic concerns.

 

Well, guess what, f*** economic concerns. We've spent the last four years keeping knitting needles away from old ladies on planes, and developing a color coded system to tell us how panicked we should be on a daily basis - but we don't pay attention to port security.

 

We rubberstamp this deal without even following the full procedure regarding security concerns even after the Coast Guard says it has concerns about the deal. We had people who signed off on the deal not know about the deal. And suddenly its about islamophobia? No. It's not.

 

I'm sure the UAE is great and all, they even gave Michael Jackson a new house and a job and such but until they become at least as responsible as Saudi Arabia in regards to fighting terrorism, I don't want them running my ports.

[Mplssoxfan]

NYT Editorial

 

Our Porous Port Protections

           

 

Published: March 10, 2006

Even if the battle over DP World is headed toward a resolution, our ports remain dangerously vulnerable to terrorist intrusions. Any politician who harangues about the United Arab Emirates without fighting for more money and more attention for overall port security is posturing for votes, not protecting the country.

 

The nightmare is that an atomic bomb or some other weapon — perhaps a "dirty bomb" spewing radiation, or a biological or chemical agent — might be smuggled in on a container ship and either detonated in the terminal or exploded elsewhere in the country. Nobody knows whether terrorists would risk sending such weapons in unguarded containers, but it would be reckless to leave the way open.

 

To prevent such a disaster, the Bush administration, prodded by Congress, has adopted a sensible strategy that focuses on intercepting terrorist cargo abroad before it can be loaded onto ships headed for this country. But efforts to carry out this plan have been sluggish. The protective barriers need to be strengthened at every link in the international supply chain.

 

The Factories The government has a voluntary program under which companies abroad develop security procedures to protect their shipments from the factory to the port. Thousands of companies have signed up, lured by promises that their cargo will whisk through inspections faster. Unfortunately, the verification that these voluntary programs are truly secure is shaky, and there is always a risk that some poorly paid truck driver may be bribed to look the other way while cargo is tampered with. And shipments from companies that don't take part in the program aren't always inspected.

 

At Shipping Ports Ocean carriers must submit electronic manifests at least 24 hours before any cargo is loaded onto a ship headed for the United States. A screening center in Virginia then analyzes the information and picks out any shipments that look suspicious so American customs agents can ask their foreign counterparts to screen those containers. Some 42 foreign ports, which ship some 80 percent of our inbound containers, have agreed to buy the scanning equipment and conduct inspections as requested. Still, the Government Accountability Office reported last year that more than a third of the containers were not being analyzed to assess their risk, and that more than a fourth of those identified as high-risk were not being inspected at the foreign ports. There is no good reason why every container headed this way, not just the small percentage deemed suspicious, can't be scanned by detection equipment.

 

A pilot program in Hong Kong found it feasible to screen every single container entering two of the busiest terminals with scanners and radiation detectors without disrupting port operations. The cost of installing and operating such systems could be paid through a surcharge estimated at $20 per container.

 

At American Ports With initial efforts focused on bolstering security abroad, the protection of American ports has lagged badly. If anything looks suspicious, the Coast Guard can theoretically inspect a vessel at sea or at the entrance to the harbor, and customs agents can inspect suspicious containers on the dock. In practice, only about 5 percent of the containers are inspected, a number most experts think is too low. And only 37 percent of the containers are screened for radiation as they leave the ports and head for the highways and railways.

 

Overall security is dismal at many ports. Low-paid rent-a-cops often guard the gates and perimeter fences. Thousands of truck drivers gain access to some ports simply by flashing driver's licenses. At one major port, journalists found gaps in the fences, unattended gates, an understaffed police force and inoperative alarms and surveillance cameras.

 

The Fixes The time is long past for the administration to put as much effort into seaport security as it has expended on airport and airline security. Every container needs to be scanned before it is loaded on inbound ships, and scanned again before it is trucked out of the American port. The long-delayed plans to conduct background checks on transportation workers who enter the ports and to issue them identification cards need to be accelerated. National standards for port security should be issued. Security guards may need to be federalized. Electronic monitoring should be used to track containers and determine whether they have been tampered with in transit.

 

No system will ever be airtight, but there is no excuse for being as far off the mark as the United States is now when it comes to port security. If the DP World debate distracts Congress from the larger issue, it will have only decreased overall homeland security.

[Balta1701]

If the Democrats really want to continue making an issue out of this, instead of just letting the Republicans say "Look how independent we are from Bush!" that NYT article is their outline.

[Balta1701]

I've alluded to this before - I've had some (slight) business dealings with people in the UAE... and this is something that is NOT good. 

 

People have taken this and just absolutely ran whacky with it.  Flaxx has propagated what the problem really is.

 

Look, it doesn't matter WHO OWNS the port, security is OUR problem.  WE are in charge of how the ports are ran, no matter WHO OWNS them.  But gee, somehow all that gets overlooked.  Why?  Because this was blatent racism by this country.  It was Islamaphobia.  And it's f***ING SICK.

 

I understand the fact that UAE has some serious issues - ie they DO have terrorist connections, they DO NOT recognize Israel, they are participating in a ban of business with Israel, etc. etc. etc. and yes this is problematic.  Something needed to be done, however, you don't want to cut your nose off to spite itself, and we just did that.

 

Sometime, if anyone cares, I can share my experience in dealing with Dubai business folks.  It was pretty interesting the exchanges.

I'd be more interesting in knowing how much damage that could actually do to this country.

 

One of the more interesting things about the world economy right now is that if you're not Saudi Arabia or Venezuela, you need the U.S. more than the U.S. needs you. The UAE doesn't want to do trade deals with the U.S.? Ok, that'll cost what, a couple thousand jobs in the U.S., maybe a couple tens of thousands? In a country of 250 million, that's a much smaller deal than in a country of 2.4 million.

 

Yes, it's nice being able to do business with everyone in the world, but sometimes things just conspire to make that impossible politically. We're in a spot where the UAE can hurt a few people, but the steel tarriffs probably did 10x the amount of damage to industries (other than steal) than any action by the UAE would.

[kapkomet]

..... I don't want them running my ports.

They wouldn't have been. Why do people keep saying that? There's a difference between owning something and running something.

[Balta1701]

They wouldn't have been.  Why do people keep saying that?  There's a difference between owning something and running something.

They would have been able to have some significant input in several ways, including hiring, even hiring of some security personnel. So it wouldn't be them entirely divorced from everything.

[Balta1701]

Of course...Maybe we'd be better off if they were running everything. We're certainly doing one sh*tty job.

 

If nothing else...this whole mess has made the media pay some attention to port security, which has been so pathetically lacking over the last 5 years it's amazing.

 

Lapses by private port operators, shipping lines or truck drivers could allow terrorists to smuggle weapons of mass destruction into the United States, according to a government review of security at American seaports.

 

The $75 million, three-year study by the Homeland Security Department included inspections at a New Jersey cargo terminal involved in the dispute over a Dubai company's now-abandoned bid to take over significant operations at six major U.S. ports.

 

The previously undisclosed results from the study found that cargo containers can be opened secretly during shipment to add or remove items without alerting U.S. authorities, according to government documents marked "sensitive security information" and obtained by The Associated Press.

 

The study found serious lapses by private companies at foreign and American ports, aboard ships, and on trucks and trains "that would enable unmanifested materials or weapons of mass destruction to be introduced into the supply chain."

 

 

The study, expected to be completed this fall, used satellites and experimental monitors to trace roughly 20,000 cargo containers out of the millions arriving each year from Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Most containers are sealed with mechanical bolts that can be cut and replaced or have doors that can be removed by dismantling hinges.

 

The risks from smuggled weapons are especially worrisome because U.S. authorities largely decide which cargo containers to inspect based on shipping records of what is thought to be inside.

Now that Ports are suddenly in the news, the AP had a reason to start digging, and viola.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Now that Ports are suddenly in the news, the AP had a reason to start digging, and viola.

 

Again, I think that can potentially be the most significant part of this. And maybe homeland security will ultimately become actual practice and not political lip service.

[samclemens]

They would have been able to have some significant input in several ways, including hiring, even hiring of some security personnel.  So it wouldn't be them entirely divorced from everything.

 

that is simply incorrect- it has always been said that the coast guard, homeland security, and port authorities would be in complete control of security issues.

[FlaSoxxJim]

that is simply incorrect- it has always been said that the coast guard, homeland security, and port authorities would be in complete control of security issues.

I don't know about the hiring issue, but the report sure indicates we don't have complete control over security issues. Unless you don't consider the potential to slip unmanifested WMDs and other materials into the containers somewhere between points A and B a security issue.

 

The study found serious lapses by private companies at foreign and American ports, aboard ships, and on trucks and trains "that would enable unmanifested materials or weapons of mass destruction to be introduced into the supply chain."

 

And again the problem is that "homeland security" is just so much lip service and money trumps everything.

[Rex Kickass]

DP World would have had control over cargo screening and would have had some input for security hiring. It would not be controlled entirely by the Coast Guard.