Dubai Ports selling out

[Balta1701]

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.

For some reason I didn't put a link in it so I don't have the source, but I quoted this on like page 3 of this thread.

 

In Washington, Chertoff said DP World should not be excluded from operating the U.S. ports just because it is based in the UAE. DP World would not be responsible for cargo screening, which is performed by the Department of Homeland Security, but the port operator would handle security for cargo coming in and out of the port and the hiring of security personnel.

[Rex Kickass]

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

 

They wouldn't be owning the ports either. DP World would assume control of a lease in NJ and NY that the Port Authority issues to them.

 

So if they aren't owning the port, or running the port, what the hell are they doing?

[NorthSideSox72]

I still think putting this deal down was the right thing to do, even if we didn't handle it very well. The company is UAE-government controlled, and UAE has shown a piss poor record on security. Our ports are already porous. The deal obviously avoided the necessary checks and balances as well. And the articles I read did indeed say that the UAE company would handle screening of cargo, and would handle security personnel issues. I think we had to say no to this, even though it will indeed end up hurting our relationship with the UAE.

 

I also do not believe our relationship with UAE will be thrown completely overboard by this deal. But I do think Bush, Congress and this country will have an uphill battle to try to soften the blow.

[Rex Kickass]

If we were so concerned with our relations to begin with, maybe we shouldnt have tried to back door the deal.

[NorthSideSox72]

If we were so concerned with our relations to begin with, maybe we shouldnt have tried to back door the deal.

Absolutely.

[kapkomet]

If we were so concerned with our relations to begin with, maybe we shouldnt have tried to back door the deal.

It wasn't "backdoor" - it was announced months ago, but no one cared until someone touched the hot lightbulb and went, "oh s***, this is HOT!".

[NorthSideSox72]

It wasn't "backdoor" - it was announced months ago, but no one cared until someone touched the hot lightbulb and went, "oh s***, this is HOT!".

It was back door in that they avoided the usual checks and processes for such deals. It was mentioned and cited earlier in this thread. And it seems clear to me that there were some under-the-table dealings on the side here, which we still don't know about.

Edited March 13, 2006 by NorthSideSox72

[kapkomet]

It was back door in that they avoided the usual checks and processes for such deals.  It was mentioned and cited earlier in this thread.  And it seems clear to me that there were some under-the-table dealings on the side here, which we still don't know about.

That's probably true.

[Rex Kickass]

The reason the 45 day review process was started was because it was bypassed in the first place.

[southsider2k5]

UAE is selling 10% of its dollar reserves and converting them into euros... Saudi Arabia is also pissed about this.

 

Yeah for higher interest rates and higher gas prices

 

http://news.independent.co.uk/business/new...ticle351127.ece

[mr_genius]

UAE is selling 10% of its dollar reserves and converting them into euros...  Saudi Arabia is also pissed about this. 

 

Yeah for higher interest rates and higher gas prices

 

http://news.independent.co.uk/business/new...ticle351127.ece

 

 

i'm not suprised

 

i like how "progressives" claim the best way to deal with terrorists is through sacnctions and rewarding countries with acceptable policies. then, a country that has done almost everything we have asked, is turned away from deals that other US allies have been given. wow, good job guys. just shows the only thing that matters to most politicians is being re-elected and saying anything to do it. just look at all the Dems that voted to invade Iraq but now back peddle and accpet NO responsibilty as to the mess we have gotten ourselves in.

Edited March 14, 2006 by mr_genius

[Rex Kickass]

Dubai was a key transfer point in getting nuclear equipment to Iran and North Korea from A.Q. Khan - who was in charge of Pakistan's nuclear program and went rogue.

 

Two of the 9/11 hijackers were from UAE. Dubai was used as a money laundering gateway to help fund Al-Qaeda.

 

And then there's this testimony from Tenet to the 9/11 commission about why one opportunity to eliminate the threat of Bin Laden was never taken.

 

FIELDING: Well, yesterday we talked about the three events in '98 and '99 where there were occasions that it looked like there might be an opportunity which then, in each instance, was deemed not to be operational. And the one that I find the most intriguing and the one that's been labeled as perhaps the lost opportunity more than any was the February '99 hunting camp -- I guess it's been described -- the desert camp.

 

And yesterday in the staff statement that was read, we're told about that and we were told that the intelligence seemed pretty strong and that the preparations were made and then the strike was called off. And the lead CIA agent in the field felt that it was very reliable intelligence.

 

I guess, was there anything unique about the intelligence or the circumstances that necessitated that decision?

 

FIELDING: And who made that decision?

 

TENET: I don't have a recollection of the uniqueness of the intelligence in question at the time. I can go back and provide that for you. In fact, I'd like to go back and try and package up all the data at my disposal when we were thinking about these issues.

 

I believe this was a collective decision. I also believe this target went away because the camp was ultimately dismantled. So in reading through your staff inquiry -- your staff notes on this, I can't recall who made the call, but I know we were all in the same place about it, Mr. Fielding.

 

FIELDING: I would appreciate that on behalf of the commission, if you could do that because it seemed that this -- when the intelligence was so good and that by the time the camp was dismantled, days and days had passed. So I would appreciate that.

 

TENET: It's also a question, I believe, as to whether bin Laden was inside or outside the camp...

 

FIELDING: Of course.

 

TENET: ... the complicating issue in this whole thing and whether he was there or not. So there's a second complicating factor here.

 

The third complicating factor here is you might have wiped out half the royal family in the UAE in the process, which I'm sure entered into everybody's calculation in all this.

 

But I'm sure the UAE did everything they could to combat terrorism. They also refuse to do any business with Israel because they're Jewish. And letting them take this lease would be a violation of US law.

 

I don't think Dubai is our friend. I don't think Saudi Arabia is our friend. And I think its stupid to risk compromising security to protect their money.

[mr_genius]

Dubai was a key transfer point in getting nuclear equipment to Iran and North Korea from A.Q. Khan - who was in charge of Pakistan's nuclear program and went rogue.

 

Two of the 9/11 hijackers were from UAE. Dubai was used as a money laundering gateway to help fund Al-Qaeda.

 

And then there's this testimony from Tenet to the 9/11 commission about why one opportunity to eliminate the threat of Bin Laden was never taken.

But I'm sure the UAE did everything they could to combat terrorism. They also refuse to do any business with Israel because they're Jewish. And letting them take this lease would be a violation of US law.

 

I don't think Dubai is our friend. I don't think Saudi Arabia is our friend. And I think its stupid to risk compromising security to protect their money.

 

 

UAE is not helping Iran get nuclear weapons.

 

Ok, you're right, UAE had two hijackers, lets invade. lets also invade Germany, France and England (there are terrorists there too). also, lets cut ecenomic ties with those contries. good idea, lets also disregard all other muslim countries as terrorists (that will make them change their ways)

 

Oh yea, do you know what country is our main staging point for military defense in the middle east? the evil UAE that wants to attack us, yes that UAE.

 

Sorry, but you have a million complaints are rarely have any solutions. Why not just give them the financial aspects of the deal and have them pay the US government to monitor the ports? oh, because that wouldn't be good political fodder.

 

It's also amusing that you talk about security but cry about wire tapping terrorists. Why should they be treated any better than the mafia? oh, because Democrats tapped the mob and Republicans are tapping terrorists. good reason to be against something, dude.

Edited March 14, 2006 by mr_genius

[Rex Kickass]

I love that you think that because I feel its important that the President follows a law regarding the surveillance of US Citizens, you think I'm crying about wiretapping terrorists. You and I know better than that. Wiretap away. Just follow the law when you do it.

 

It's great that the UAE is letting us stage there. We also staged out of Saudi Arabia. But I wouldn't call them our friends either.

 

Is there some racism involved in the outrage over this deal? Yes, there are some parties who are racially, or even religiously motivated. I am not one of these people. This deal is bad because I don't believe our ports should be controlled or owned or whatever by any foreign agent whatsoever.

 

Then again, there might not have been any uproar over this deal at all had the administration chosen to follow the standards and procedures that the law requires them to follow including a 45 day security review that wasn't done. But the deal was backdoored, and corners were cut.

 

Port security is a damn important issue, and corners should never be cut.

 

I have serious issues with this deal, and none of them have anything to do with the President being a Republican or a Democrat. I have serious issues with wiretapping, because I have serious issues with a President who pretty much just thumbs his nose at existing law and so much as says it in public to boot.

[mr_genius]

I guess it depends on what information you believe on the wire taps. Of course, one side says they are following the rules and the political opponent claims they are using illegal tactics. The truth, as usual, is probably somewhere in the middle.

 

The same could be said for the ports deal. If I had to take a guess, I would say that this deal is no different than the deals we have with British companies running our ports. I would even venture to say that if any corners were cut on this deal these exact same corners were cut with other deals. The main reasons this is such an issue is that there are political advantages to be gained by using the current atmosphere of fear and anger towards arabs that is common in the United States and around the world. This fear and anger is fairly justified to a certain degree. But I don't think it is a good idea to treat our allies, yes I said allies, in the middle east like they are all criminals. You have to realize that the nations that are our 'friends' in the middle east have to pander to their citizens just like our politicans do (they pander out of fear of a violent revolution). It is too politically dangerous for them to deal with Isreal, and it is too politically dangerous for us to deal with them. Both occurances are counter-productive.

Edited March 14, 2006 by mr_genius

[FlaSoxxJim]

I guess it depends on what information you believe on the wire taps.  Of course, one side says they are following the rules and the political opponent claims they are using illegal tactics.

 

I know this is jumping onto a tangent (apologies), but who outside of the administration has consistently and convincingly said they think BushCo and the NSA are "following the rules?" And there is a difference between "following the rules" (i.e., acting within the law) and exceeding the law because the administration deems it necessary (i.e., to defend against a terrorist threat).

 

The Senate Intelligence Committee voted not to investigate the program because they don't want the program investigated, not because they think the administration or NSA is acting within the law.

 

The DeWine/Hagel/Snowe/Graham sponsored Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006, if passed, would codify the illegal activity rather than actually look into it, because they don't want to look into it. Because if they actually investigated they would find the program to be in clear violation of existing statutes as well as the US Constitution. That is to say, blatantly illgal.

 

Sen. Snowe was saying she would support Sen. Rockefeller's push for a full inquiry into the program not two weeks ago, and then flipflopped to help circle the wagons. That's the extent to which any of these so-called GOP "moderates" really wanted to get to the bottom of this.

[mr_genius]

I know this is jumping onto a tangent (apologies), but who outside of the administration has consistently and convincingly said they think BushCo and the NSA are "following the rules?"

 

 

I'll put it this way; the GOP supporters have their arguments on the issue. GOP detractors have their arguments.

 

 

From what I've read and heard I think there probably have been some bending of the rules, but I don't think it is something that is out of the ordinary when dealing with national security intel. Honestly, I think if a Democrat was in office the people screaming about this would be supporting it. The fact that someone originally supported an investigation then changed their mind as they began to feel the investigation was just a politcal stunt does not mean there is something deviant going on behind the scenes.

 

I don't know to the extect of the surveillance, but I do know that I don't support blatent abuses of our rights to privacy.

Edited March 14, 2006 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

The Republicans today blocked in I believe nearly-unanimous votes 2 attempts by the Democrats to require and fund X-Ray and Radiation scans of 100% of the items coming in through U.S. ports. 1 of those amendments would have cost roughly $1.25 billion, $300 million of which would have gone to replacing and upgrading emergency communications equipment along the gulf coast. The other merely covered scanning & X-Raying at ports.