Any one hear that Miz. Klinton is introducing a bill to halt the sale?
If true I agree with her  

Quoted: I'm a little surprised that more folks around here aren't outraged at this news. What gives???

+1. sad commentary on the US isn't it.

Quoted: Everyone knows that Port Security, Customs, etc etc will still be run by Homeland Security, right? And that the folks actually at the ports will be the same Americans that are currently employed by the  Britain based company, right?

What the hell do you think you're doing injecting LOGIC and FACTS into this rant-filled thread?  What, you wanna make people actually THINK?  

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/20/port.security/index.html

Tom Ridge is saying "The US should explain this deal - concerns are legitimate"

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration needs to show Congress why national security won't be hurt by a deal that gives a company based in the United Arab Emirates management of six major U.S. ports, former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said Monday.

Ridge, appearing on CNN's "American Morning," said, "I think the anxiety and the concern [over the deal] that has been expressed by congressmen and senators and elsewhere is legitimate."

Ridge said that during his tenure as secretary of homeland security from October 2001 to February 2005, he sat in on deals with similar national security concerns and officials would not jeopardize national security.

"The bottom line is I think we need a little more transparency here," he said. "There are legitimate concerns about who would be in charge of hiring and firing and security measures -- added technology in these ports that we need to upgrade our security." (Watch lawmakers call for deal to be stopped -- 2:55)

Ridge recommended that the Bush administration go to Capitol Hill to show how America's security will be enhanced by the deal.

"I suspect they can do that," he said.

Earlier this month, shareholders of British-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O) approved the company's acquisition by a group owned by Dubai Ports World, which is based in the capital of the United Arab Emirates.

The Bush administration says the UAE is a key ally in the war on terror, but some lawmakers have suggested the small Persian Gulf nation might have terrorist ties.

According to the 9/11 commission report, at least one of the 19 hijackers drew money from bank accounts based in the UAE to help pay for operations. And, according to the report, hijacker Marwan al-Shehhi was from the UAE.

Lawmakers call for probe
Several lawmakers on Sunday questioned the deal, with two senators calling for a congressional probe.

"We certainly should investigate it," Sen. Lindsey Graham told Fox News.

"I don't know if we should block it. But it's unbelievably tone deaf politically at this point in our history, four years after 9/11, to entertain the idea of turning port security over to a company based in the UAE, who avows to destroy Israel," the South Carolina Republican added.

Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh agreed.

"I think we've got to look into this company," he told Fox.

Bayh added that the threshold for approving a foreign company's takeover of a U.S. company needs to be high.

"We have to do, even if it costs us a couple extra bucks, what it takes to protect this country," he said.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said the sale was reviewed by several federal agencies.

"You know, this issue comes up periodically every time a foreign-owned company wants to take over an asset that has national security significance," he said on CNN's "Late Edition."

"And there is a legal process Congress created for a committee to sit and review this. It's Treasury, Commerce, DHS, FBI is involved, and DOD is involved. We look at these transactions," Chertoff added.

"If necessary, we build in conditions or requirements that, for extra security, would have to be met in order to make sure that there isn't a compromise to national security."

Schumer: 'Accident waiting to happen'
Sen. Charles Schumer denounced the deal, saying the UAE has "a sad history with terrorism."

Speaking at a news conference Sunday with some families of people killed in the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on the United States, the New York Democrat said, "These families know the danger of being careless and casual about terrorism."

He called on Bush to intervene.

"Outsourcing the operations of our largest ports to a country with long involvement in terrorism is a homeland security accident waiting to happen," he said.

Possible legislation
London-based P&O has been running ports in the United States since 1999, according to the company Web site. The six ports affected are in New York; New Jersey; Baltimore, Maryland; Miami, Florida; New Orleans, Louisiana; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; .

On Friday, Sens. Robert Menendez, D-New Jersey, and Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, announced they planned to introduce legislation that would ban companies owned by foreign governments from controlling operations at U.S. ports.

Menendez said Sunday that Chertoff's comments show "that the Bush administration just does not get it."

"No matter what steps the administration claims it has secretly taken, it is an unacceptable risk to turn control of our ports over to a foreign government, particularly one with a troubling history," he said in a statement. "We cannot depend on promises a foreign government has given the administration in secret to secure our ports."

Quoted: Quoted: Everyone knows that Port Security, Customs, etc etc will still be run by Homeland Security, right? And that the folks actually at the ports will be the same Americans that are currently employed by the  Britain based company, right? What the hell do you think you're doing injecting LOGIC and FACTS into this rant-filled thread?  What, you wanna make people actually THINK?

Sorry. No wonder my post count is comparitively low....

IMHO all ports of entry should be run by US owned corporations or citizens.  - just like our Radio & TV licenses can only be owned by US Owned corporations/citizens.

However seeing as we are supposed to be a FREE society, one that believes in the free-market, if US companies are not stepping up to the plate to buy these sorts of business then it's OUR fault it's not a US corporation.

I for one would like to know why the US companies are not interested in this kind of business.  I think that would be very telling.

As a former security manager for a major U.S. port I just don't understand it. First of all Customs and Border Protection, and ICE are not responsible and do not have jurisdiction over the physical security of port facilities. CBP has jurisdiction only in regards to cargo. Basically they inspect by various means less than 5% of incoming containerized cargo.

DHS via the U.S. Coast guard are the regulating authorities over port security however they only set guidelines via the Maritime Transportation Security Act and inspect for compliance. They do not provide security for port facilities. The port operator is responsible for maintaining port security operations and more importantly has access to shipping manifests that describe the contents and point of origin of cargo.

The fact that mostly U.S. citizens will be working at these facilities is just not a valid argument. We currently have U.S. citizens of the Islamic culture serving long sentences in federal prison for terrorist acts. Just Google "The Portland seven", one of these individuals previously worked in the mayor's office for the city of Portland. In addition, with the exception of the roughly 5% or less that is inspected visually or radiologically by CBP, containerized cargo is not opened by anyone except the end user. Doing so is a violation of various international and federal laws.

Longshoreman can discharge several thousand containers from a single ship in a very short period of time. For a whole lot of good reasons they are not privy to the contents of any container. This is a real complicated issue but my opinion is that the Bush administration is putting the security and welfare of the american people on the back burner. Why? I couldn't even begin guess, but I believe it has been going on for a while. Politics as usual and we are going to pay the price.

Quoted: As a former security manager for a major U.S. port I just don't understand it. First of all Customs and Border Protection, and ICE are not responsible and do not have jurisdiction over the physical security of port facilities. CBP has jurisdiction only in regards to cargo. Basically they inspect by various means less than 5% of incoming containerized cargo. DHS via the U.S. Coast guard are the regulating authorities over port security however they only set guidelines via the Maritime Transportation Security Act and inspect for compliance. They do not provide security for port facilities. The port operator is responsible for maintaining port security operations and more importantly has access to shipping manifests that describe the contents and point of origin of cargo. The fact that mostly U.S. citizens will be working at these facilities is just not a valid argument. We currently have U.S. citizens of the Islamic culture serving long sentences in federal prison for terrorist acts. Just Google "The Portland seven", one of these individuals previously worked in the mayor's office for the city of Portland. In addition, with the exception of the roughly 5% or less that is inspected visually or radiologically by CBP, containerized cargo is not opened by anyone except the end user. Doing so is a violation of various international and federal laws. Longshoreman can discharge several thousand containers from a single ship in a very short period of time. For a whole lot of good reasons they are not privy to the contents of any container. This is a real complicated issue but my opinion is that the Bush administration is putting the security and welfare of the american people on the back burner. Why? I couldn't even begin guess, but I believe it has been going on for a while. Politics as usual and we are going to pay the price.

that is what I'm talking about.  Let islam be responsible for hiring a few dock hands, who will then insure that a naughty container doesn't get lost. Hire a few islamic extreamist security guards and ensure it makes it through uninspected. bad juju

Time to stop whining and start calling and emailing senators. We got the 911 pennsylvania memorial changed. This is way more important.

I wonder how much money W was promised in that "secret meeting" ?

BUMP

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Everyone knows that Port Security, Customs, etc etc will still be run by Homeland Security, right? And that the folks actually at the ports will be the same Americans that are currently employed by the  Britain based company, right? What the hell do you think you're doing injecting LOGIC and FACTS into this rant-filled thread?  What, you wanna make people actually THINK?   Sorry. No wonder my post count is comparitively low....

So, you guys like facts? Well read up...

Quoted: As a former security manager for a major U.S. port I just don't understand it. First of all Customs and Border Protection, and ICE are not responsible and do not have jurisdiction over the physical security of port facilities. CBP has jurisdiction only in regards to cargo. Basically they inspect by various means less than 5% of incoming containerized cargo. DHS via the U.S. Coast guard are the regulating authorities over port security however they only set guidelines via the Maritime Transportation Security Act and inspect for compliance. They do not provide security for port facilities. The port operator is responsible for maintaining port security operations and more importantly has access to shipping manifests that describe the contents and point of origin of cargo. The fact that mostly U.S. citizens will be working at these facilities is just not a valid argument. We currently have U.S. citizens of the Islamic culture serving long sentences in federal prison for terrorist acts. Just Google "The Portland seven", one of these individuals previously worked in the mayor's office for the city of Portland. In addition, with the exception of the roughly 5% or less that is inspected visually or radiologically by CBP, containerized cargo is not opened by anyone except the end user. Doing so is a violation of various international and federal laws. Longshoreman can discharge several thousand containers from a single ship in a very short period of time. For a whole lot of good reasons they are not privy to the contents of any container. This is a real complicated issue but my opinion is that the Bush administration is putting the security and welfare of the american people on the back burner. Why? I couldn't even begin guess, but I believe it has been going on for a while. Politics as usual and we are going to pay the price.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Everyone knows that Port Security, Customs, etc etc will still be run by Homeland Security, right? And that the folks actually at the ports will be the same Americans that are currently employed by the  Britain based company, right? What the hell do you think you're doing injecting LOGIC and FACTS into this rant-filled thread?  What, you wanna make people actually THINK?   Sorry. No wonder my post count is comparitively low.... So, you guys like facts? Well read up... Quoted: As a former security manager for a major U.S. port I just don't understand it. First of all Customs and Border Protection, and ICE are not responsible and do not have jurisdiction over the physical security of port facilities. CBP has jurisdiction only in regards to cargo. Basically they inspect by various means less than 5% of incoming containerized cargo. DHS via the U.S. Coast guard are the regulating authorities over port security however they only set guidelines via the Maritime Transportation Security Act and inspect for compliance. They do not provide security for port facilities. The port operator is responsible for maintaining port security operations and more importantly has access to shipping manifests that describe the contents and point of origin of cargo. The fact that mostly U.S. citizens will be working at these facilities is just not a valid argument. We currently have U.S. citizens of the Islamic culture serving long sentences in federal prison for terrorist acts. Just Google "The Portland seven", one of these individuals previously worked in the mayor's office for the city of Portland. In addition, with the exception of the roughly 5% or less that is inspected visually or radiologically by CBP, containerized cargo is not opened by anyone except the end user. Doing so is a violation of various international and federal laws. Longshoreman can discharge several thousand containers from a single ship in a very short period of time. For a whole lot of good reasons they are not privy to the contents of any container. This is a real complicated issue but my opinion is that the Bush administration is putting the security and welfare of the american people on the back burner. Why? I couldn't even begin guess, but I believe it has been going on for a while. Politics as usual and we are going to pay the price.

Silence. I thought that would be the response.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled Bush-can-do-no-wrong-a-thon.

It's insane,  it's obvious that our government has forgotten what happened on 9/11/01.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Everyone knows that Port Security, Customs, etc etc will still be run by Homeland Security, right? And that the folks actually at the ports will be the same Americans that are currently employed by the  Britain based company, right? What the hell do you think you're doing injecting LOGIC and FACTS into this rant-filled thread?  What, you wanna make people actually THINK?   Sorry. No wonder my post count is comparitively low.... So, you guys like facts? Well read up... Quoted: As a former security manager for a major U.S. port I just don't understand it. First of all Customs and Border Protection, and ICE are not responsible and do not have jurisdiction over the physical security of port facilities. CBP has jurisdiction only in regards to cargo. Basically they inspect by various means less than 5% of incoming containerized cargo. DHS via the U.S. Coast guard are the regulating authorities over port security however they only set guidelines via the Maritime Transportation Security Act and inspect for compliance. They do not provide security for port facilities. The port operator is responsible for maintaining port security operations and more importantly has access to shipping manifests that describe the contents and point of origin of cargo. The fact that mostly U.S. citizens will be working at these facilities is just not a valid argument. We currently have U.S. citizens of the Islamic culture serving long sentences in federal prison for terrorist acts. Just Google "The Portland seven", one of these individuals previously worked in the mayor's office for the city of Portland. In addition, with the exception of the roughly 5% or less that is inspected visually or radiologically by CBP, containerized cargo is not opened by anyone except the end user. Doing so is a violation of various international and federal laws. Longshoreman can discharge several thousand containers from a single ship in a very short period of time. For a whole lot of good reasons they are not privy to the contents of any container. This is a real complicated issue but my opinion is that the Bush administration is putting the security and welfare of the american people on the back burner. Why? I couldn't even begin guess, but I believe it has been going on for a while. Politics as usual and we are going to pay the price. Silence. I thought that would be the response. We now return you to your regularly scheduled Bush-can-do-no-wrong-a-thon.

My response --

Some folks in the Republican party are putting the bottom line above national security interests.  On the other side of the aisle, the Democrats put political power over national security interests (to get votes, they won't do things that may offend certain people).  No one in either of the two major parties is really interested in taking true steps to ensure our security, such as sealing the border.

jkstexas2001...

I find it odd that  "some folks in the Republican party" conveniently ignore the fact that DP World itself has been quoted as saying that "We intend to maintain and, where appropriate, enhance current security arrangements"

Thus, making the claim that DP World will have no responsibility for port security a rather strange little piece of spin.

Fact is, day to day port operations cannot be segregated from security, and to pretend that the two can be segregated is pure fantasy!!!

Oh... and let's all ignore that Dubai and Dubai-based companies and banking institutions have an ignoble and disturbingly direct history of ties to 9/11 and terrorist funding and transit.

NYPatriot - you are quite right.  Dubai is the Switzerland of the Middle East.  While it does not get its hands dirty directly, it sure does handle some dirty money, just as the Swiss handled some questionable accounts during World War II for the Nazis, based on gold sales from gold extracted from teeth of Jewish prisoners.  Dubai is known to launder money from Al Qaeda.  We should not have any business dealings with them AT ALL.  We should put profit considerations much lower than national security considerations.  It seems that (I am a Republican, BTW) the Republican Party talks big about national security, but does not follow through when profits are involved, as is the case with this Port issue, and with the Southern Border issue.  The Democratic party is no better, they just ignore national security concerns for different reasons.

Senator Frist calls for a hold to the port deal

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-02-21T175819Z_01_N19219437_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-PORTS.xml&rpc=22

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said on Tuesday the Bush administration should put on hold a deal with a state-owned Dubai company to manage major U.S. seaports, saying it needed a "more extensive review."

"If the administration cannot delay the process, I plan on introducing legislation to ensure that the deal is placed on hold until this decision gets a more thorough review," Frist, a Tennessee Republican, said in a statement.

Frist is the most senior member of Congress and of the president's own party to call for the government to reconsider a decision to let state-controlled Dubai Ports World of the United Arab Emirates manage U.S. sea ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

Other lawmakers from both parties have also raised concerns about the deal's impact on the strategic facilities, which are considered vulnerable since the September 11 attacks. Dubai Ports World is on the verge of taking over the firm that currently manages those ports, Britain's P&O.

"It is important for Congress to be involved in this process. I have requested a detailed briefing on this deal," Frist said.

He added that it was not the first time questions had been raised about the executive branch's review process, led by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, for these types of transactions.

"These deals could have a major impact on America's security, the protection of which is our greatest responsibility," Frist said.

"The CFIUS process needs to be more transparent and include a role for Congress that includes reviewing these deals, and possibly voiding them if necessary."

In the House of Representatives, Florida Republican Rep. Clay Shaw announced on Tuesday he would introduce legislation aimed at preventing foreign entities from operating U.S. seaports. Shaw is the chairman of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade, which has jurisdiction over the Customs Agency.

And Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer and Republican Congressman Peter King said they would push the legislation to block the deal as soon as Congress resumes on Monday.

Some more facts.

The new buying company is Dubai World Ports, they run terminals throughout Europe, Asia, Australia, and other areas.

The issue is Terminal operation, not Port operation. There are multiple terminals per ports.

The Ports are owned by the local cities. ie the Port of Baltimore is owned by the City of Baltimore and run by the Baltimore Port Authority. This doesn't change.

87% of the shipping terminals in the US are run by foreign companies. (EG Maersk, COSCO, Hanjin, etc)

The Coast Guard handles terminal security.

100% of the management and workers under the new company will be the same people.

Lord Gray Boots,

Your "facts" miss the main point.  Why are we even doing business with a government that launders money for Al Qaeda.  I know Rush and others will try to support the administration in this matter, but they are wrong.  And there are security issues involved as well.  But even if they weren't, would you have a problem with the port operation being used to launder money for Al Qaeda, or not?  Some things are not defendible, and this is one.

America is fucked


thanks a lot bush!  thanks alot washington...  fucking traitors

Quoted: America is fucked thanks a lot bush!  thanks alot washington...  fucking traitors

+1

Jimma Cartier is all for it so it has to be a devastating deal for America.

Quoted: Sounds like a good starting point for a nuclear 9-11.

Actually the starting point will be the port where the ship loads.  Once that ship enters our waters it won't matter who runs the ports on our side.

ETA: Unless I'm missing something and we're all worried about someone sneaking something OUT of a U.S. port.

Quoted: This is all the fault of the Left!

No it ain't.  But I do hold you personally responsible.

From another thread on the subject:

Quoted: Well, I was listening to Tony Snow this morning and he helped put thing into perspective.  First, the problem with making sure that the company overseeing port operations is an American company is that the are no American companies in this business.  Worldwide, there are three large enough to handle this kind of an operation.  One in the U.A.E, one in Singapore and one in Hong Kong.  So basically, our choices are the U.A.E. or China. Second, under the terms of the contract, the management structure from the the British company will stay in place (the British company apparently is going out of business or has be bought up.)  They will simply be getting their paychecks from the U.A.E. insted of England. I'm still not crazy about this deal, but it seems the Bush administration is doing the best they can with the cards that they have been dealt.  Maybe Halliburton should get into the port-management business.  That would solve the problem and piss off the Dems.

Quoted: Quoted: Sounds like a good starting point for a nuclear 9-11. Actually the starting point will be the port where the ship loads.  Once that ship enters our waters it won't matter who runs the ports on our side. ETA: Unless I'm missing something and we're all worried about someone sneaking something OUT of a U.S. port.

wow,  im glad i live so close to one of the mentioned ports.  now i feel safe.

On Drudge now.  



BUSH ISSUES VETO THREAT; VOWS TO KEEP PORT DEAL

Quoted: On Drudge now.   www.drudgereport.com/siren.gif BUSH ISSUES VETO THREAT; VOWS TO KEEP PORT DEAL

Wouldn't that be his first veto?

yes....isn't that something.

Quoted: Lord Gray Boots, Your "facts" miss the main point.  Why are we even doing business with a government that launders money for Al Qaeda.  I know Rush and others will try to support the administration in this matter, but they are wrong.  And there are security issues involved as well.  But even if they weren't, would you have a problem with the port operation being used to launder money for Al Qaeda, or not?  Some things are not defendible, and this is one.

I understand that some money laundering/transfers were handled through a Dubai bank (or two) 4-5 years ago.  Thats no longer occuring, and the UAE government has been busy doing things like shooting Al-Queda supporters since.

In any case,  how does the transfers through a bank 4-5 years ago, relate to the future operations of a terminal management company run by the UAE government?

Isn't that kind of like saying since an American airline let the hijackers on board 4.5 years ago, then the US Coast Guard should not handle port security now?