Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 2/22/2006 7:21:24 AM EDT
Is this merely a political issue or does it truly involve national security?

I heard a guy on the radio this morning state that who controls the port has nothing to do with security.

He basically stated that...

The US Coast Guard controls what ships come into the port
The US Customs controls what goes on and off the ships
The US Immigration controls who comes off the ships.

If that is the case and the companies themselves aren't responsible for security, is this thing getting blown out of proportion?

Link Posted: 2/22/2006 7:23:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sydney7629:
Is this merely a political issue or does it truly involve national security?

I heard a guy on the radio this morning state that who controls the port has nothing to do with security.

He basically stated that...

The US Coast Guard controls what ships come into the port
The US Customs controls what goes on and off the ships
The US Immigration controls who comes off the ships.

If that is the case and the companies themselves aren't responsible for security, is this thing getting blown out of proportion?




Yes it is getting blown out of proportion.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 7:24:37 AM EDT
Politics are absolutely involved. That's how things go these days. EVERYTHING is political. Bush locks people in Gitmo, he is intolerant of Arabs and violating people's rights. He doesn't oppose an Arab company buying ports, and he is an Arab sympathizer who is undermining security. Et cetera, ad infinitum....

That's why being a liberal is SOOOO much fun! You can literally be on ALL sides of an issue at THE SAME TIME and STILL be right in your own scrambled little mind!

There IS some legitimate concern that Arab companies can employ people who will sympathize with the terrorists and who might use their ownership of the ports to aid them in their muderous endeavors. I don't think it is very likely personally...
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 7:25:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sydney7629:
Is this merely a political issue or does it truly involve national security?

I heard a guy on the radio this morning state that who controls the port has nothing to do with security.

He basically stated that...

The US Coast Guard controls what ships come into the port
The US Customs controls what goes on and off the ships
The US Immigration controls who comes off the ships.

If that is the case and the companies themselves aren't responsible for security, is this thing getting blown out of proportion?





ONLy 5% of the 12 MILLION containers that come into our ports gets inspected.......IS THAT GOOD SECURITY?....who controls what?....apparently not much control at all.......IMO
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 7:26:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sydney7629:


If that is the case and the companies themselves aren't responsible for security, is this thing getting blown out of proportion?





Said security measures would be shared with the Ruling Authority - hence, that information could get funneled to terrorists
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 7:27:52 AM EDT
Hell yea it's blown out of proportion.. The Brits run the show there now and you'd never know it.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 7:30:49 AM EDT

"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," Menendez said in a statement.


Because when a British company sells their interests to a UAE company it suddenly becomes foreign.

(And let's just forget for the moment how many terminals are run by the Chinese)
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 7:37:48 AM EDT
This is sensationalism by politicized forces. Chuck Schumer waso ne of the early protestors of this deal, that should tell you something.

And besides, the UAE is one of the few friends we have in that part of the world. We should not be trying to piss them off.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 7:43:44 AM EDT
I find it HILARIOUS that anyone cares about this issue.

Our southern (and northern, I guess) border is WIDE OPEN, and anybody can pretty much stroll into the U.S., bringing whatever they want - chemical, biological, nuclear, erc.

Regardless of who "manages" our ports, the vast majority of containers are NOT inspected. A foreign power or group could probably ship a nuclear device into the U.S. on a commerical container ship quite easily.



We have practically NO serious border security at all, and people are quiblling over who happens to own the company that performs some management functions at some ports?
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 3:26:58 AM EDT
www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007999
Wall Street Journal editorial: (This one reads like it was written by John Fund or B. Miniter)

In a telephone interview yesterday, Kristie Clemens of U.S. Customs and Border Protection elaborated that "Customs and Border Protection has the sole responsibility for the cargo processing and cargo security, incoming and outgoing. The port authority sets the guidelines for the entire port, and port operators have to follow those guidelines." Again, nothing in the pending deal would affect that arrangement.

The timing of this sudden uproar is also a tad suspicious. A bidding war for the British-owned P&O has been going on since last autumn, and the P&O board accepted Dubai's latest offer last month. The story only blew up last week, as a Florida firm that is a partner with P&O in Miami, Continental Stevedoring and Terminals Inc., filed a suit to block the purchase. Miami's mayor also sent a letter of protest to Mr. Bush. It wouldn't be the first time if certain politicians were acting here on behalf of private American commercial interests.

Critics also forget, or conveniently ignore, that the UAE government has been among the most helpful Arab countries in the war on terror. It was one of the first countries to join the U.S. container security initiative, which seeks to inspect cargo in foreign ports. The UAE has assisted in training security forces in Iraq, and at home it has worked hard to stem terrorist financing and WMD proliferation. UAE leaders are as much an al Qaeda target as Tony Blair.

As for the Democrats, we suppose this is a two-fer: They have a rare opportunity to get to the right of the GOP on national security, and they can play to their union, anti-foreign investment base as well. At a news conference in front of New York harbor, Senator Chuck Schumer said allowing the Arab company to manage ports "is a homeland security accident waiting to happen." Hillary Clinton is also along for this political ride.

So the same Democrats who lecture that the war on terror is really a battle for "hearts and minds" now apparently favor bald discrimination against even friendly Arabs investing in the U.S.? Guantanamo must be closed because it's terrible PR, wiretapping al Qaeda in the U.S. is illegal, and the U.S. needs to withdraw from Iraq, but these Democratic superhawks simply will not allow Arabs to be put in charge of American longshoremen. That's all sure to play well on al Jazeera.

Yesterday Mr. Bush defended his decision to allow the investment to go ahead, and he threatened what would be his first veto if Congress tries to block it. We hope this time he means it.



More at the link.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 7:51:29 AM EDT
Tempest in a teacup. This is a big multinational corp. Did you know that Disneyland Paris is Arab-owned?

If you wanted to bring a weapon or people into the country you could stop your ship 10 miles offshore and offload into a power boat and sail right into waterever city you like.

GunLvr
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 7:57:35 AM EDT
I believe there are reasons to be concerned.

The Port of Corpus Christi just re-upped its contract with the British firm that runs that port. This means that the UAE would also run this port if the deal goes through.
The problem is this. The U.S. military ships a lot of stuff out of Corpus using commercial shippers. The company running the port has access to all the ship's manifests. In other words, intel regarding military shipments can be accessed and passed on to third parties by people within the Port Authority.
I think everyone should have a problem with this.
I sure do.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 8:02:30 AM EDT
UAE Special Forces are killing Talbian and Al-Quaida here, and are some hardcore sons of bitches.

They drive around in these:

Link Posted: 2/23/2006 8:04:09 AM EDT
First of all, I call bullshit on the Dubai deal; these people were buddy buddy with Osama, the Taliban, and who knows what before 9/11. They only distanced themselves after the events of that September morning.

Secondly, even though they may not control the security of the ports directly, the security directors (Coast Guard) still have to co-ordinate with the port owners, so that all sides can keep things running smoothly.

Thirdly, All moslems must aid other moslems in jehad. It says so in the Koran itself. So all the information on security measures in the ports will be open to Moslem fanatics, and having friends in the port owner's seat will help ensure that "certain" cargoes get "special" treatment.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 8:27:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/23/2006 8:28:03 AM EDT by Garand_Shooter]

Originally Posted By MKSheppard:
First of all, I call bullshit on the Dubai deal; these people were buddy buddy with Osama, the Taliban, and who knows what before 9/11. They only distanced themselves after the events of that September morning.

Link? or do you have a source?


Secondly, even though they may not control the security of the ports directly, the security directors (Coast Guard) still have to co-ordinate with the port owners, so that all sides can keep things running smoothly.

Thirdly, All moslems must aid other moslems in jehad. It says so in the Koran itself. So all the information on security measures in the ports will be open to Moslem fanatics, and having friends in the port owner's seat will help ensure that "certain" cargoes get "special" treatment.



Funny, come tell that to the Afghan soldiers who fight with us every day and kill plenty of jihadists. Or the Eygptians or UAE soldiers who are doing the same. Or the Iraqi soldiers training up and fighting to kill jihadists in thier own country.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 9:37:27 AM EDT
Perhaps this might help some interested in this subject:

onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/printer_527.shtml

Special Reports
The Houses of Bush, Sabah, and Maktoum
By Wayne Madsen
Online Journal Contributing Writer


Feb 22, 2006, 16:29


The Bush Crime Family's close business dealings with the royal houses of Kuwait (the Sabah family) and Dubai (the Maktoum family) either borders on or is treason according to information received from U.S. military and Persian Gulf sources by WMR.

The Sabah family and their business cohorts are reportedly skimming hundreds of millions of dollars from the shipping of military materiel through Kuwait to U.S. forces in Iraq. Moreover, much of this money is being used to fund the Sunni insurgency in Iraq that is directed against U.S. troops. In 1993, former President George H. W. Bush was awarded an honorary doctorate by Kuwait University and Kuwait's highest honor, the Order of Mubarak the Great. Bush was accompanied on a Kuwait Airways flight by his sons Neil and Marvin and former Secretary of State James Baker III, former chief of staff John Sununu, and Joint Chiefs Operations Director General Thomas Kelly. After the trip Neil landed lucrative contracts with the Kuwaiti Ministry of Electricity and Water. Marvin secured defense contracts for his clients. Baker nailed down deals for Enron. To ratchet things up with Saddam, Kuwait staged a round up of some Iraqi whiskey smugglers said to be planning the assassination of the elder Bush during his visit to Kuwait. President Clinton launched a cruise missile attack on Iraq in retaliation for the phony assassination attempt.

Marvin served on the board of Securacom (renamed Stratesec), which had contracts to provide security for Dulles Airport and the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Securacom’s backers included a number of Kuwaitis through a company called KuwAm Corp (Kuwaiti-American Corp.). KuwAm also financially backed Aviation General, formerly Commander Aircraft, which brokered the sale of airplanes to the National Civil Aviation Training Organization (NCATO), located in Giza, Egypt, the hometown of lead hijacker Mohammed Atta and the only civilian pilot training school in Egypt. NCATO has a training agreement with Embry-Riddle University in Daytona Beach, Florida, the flight school that was investigated by the FBI for possibly training at least one of the 911 hijackers.

Neil also developed close connections to the Maktoum family of Dubai, the same family that has interests in the state-owned firm, Dubai Ports World, that is poised to take over the operations of six U.S. ports (New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia-Camden, Miami, New Orleans, and Baltimore) after its purchase of the British P&O Company.

Shaikh Hamdan bin Rashid al Maktoum, the Finance Minister of Dubai and someone who certainly had his pulse on the millions of dollars sent through the emirate to the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and Pakistani madrassas and assorted Islamic “charities.”

UAE banking insiders have revealed that accounts used to fund the Taliban and Al Qaeda involved members of the Dubai royal family. Banking insiders in Dubai report that in March 2002, U.S. Secretary of Treasury Paul O’Neill visited Dubai and asked for documents on a $109,500 money transfer from Dubai to a joint account held by hijackers Mohammed Atta and Marwan al Shehhi at Sun Trust Bank in Florida. O’Neill also asked UAE authorities to close down accounts used by Al Qaeda and affiliated partners like Victor Bout. The UAE complained about O’Neill’s demands to the Bush administration. O’Neill’s pressure on the UAE and Saudis contributed to Bush firing him as Treasury Secretary in December 2002.

© 2005 WayneMadsenReport.com. All Rights Reserved.



Mike

Link Posted: 2/23/2006 10:39:32 AM EDT
Sir, IMHO the whole furor is simple Bush bashing by the ignorant or just capitalizing on the ignorance of the public at the President's expense. When it comes to port security what you heard on the radio is true.

In today's local paper (Norfolk, Virginia) there's an interesting article on the subject, quoting a local USCG commander "We do port security every day, we will not be giving up port security to anybody".

I will also state without equivocation that the United Arab Emirates, in particular Dubai, is one of our staunchest allies in the war on terror. Having worked for the US Navy for many year I have been deployed to the Gulf region many times. I've worked on our ships in Bahrain, Oman, and Dubai. When the USS Stark was struck by Iraqi missles she was docked in Dubai for repairs sufficient to prepare her for transport back to the US. When USS Samuel B. Roberts struck a mine before the first gulf war she was drydocked at Dubai Dry docks for repairs. When USS Dahlgren required replacement of a ships service generator stator our friends in Dubai Drydock were the only facility in the region capable of such a large undertaking. When USS Princeton struck a mine during the first gulf war she was drydocked and repaired at Dubai Drydocks. I have worked on many other US Navy ships in Dubai and Jebel Ali, and enjoyed the gracious hospitality of our hosts. Dubai and Jebel Ali host our ship's port visits quite frequently and our sailors look forward to the opportunity. I'm actually quite ashamed our friends in UAE are being smeared in such a manner, this can only damage all of our efforts in the middle east and most assuredly will be exploited by our enemies to the max. JMHO, 7zero1.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 10:44:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JarheadPatriot:

Originally Posted By sydney7629:
Is this merely a political issue or does it truly involve national security?

I heard a guy on the radio this morning state that who controls the port has nothing to do with security.

He basically stated that...

The US Coast Guard controls what ships come into the port
The US Customs controls what goes on and off the ships
The US Immigration controls who comes off the ships.

If that is the case and the companies themselves aren't responsible for security, is this thing getting blown out of proportion?





ONLy 5% of the 12 MILLION containers that come into our ports gets inspected.......IS THAT GOOD SECURITY?....who controls what?....apparently not much control at all.......IMO

'

That 5% is 100% of the suspicious containers. US customs checks 100% of the containers that Customs has any questions on. The only port in the world that scans 100% of containers is the main port at Dubai UAE, (run by DPW) they installed scanners to handle 100% of the containers that go through their port.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 10:46:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

Originally Posted By sydney7629:


If that is the case and the companies themselves aren't responsible for security, is this thing getting blown out of proportion?





Said security measures would be shared with the Ruling Authority - hence, that information could get funneled to terrorists



Wrong. Security measures are shared with the Port Authority, who is the local muncipal authority. Once gain, DPW won't run the ports, they only lease dock space and load and unload ships.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 10:57:26 AM EDT
I have to agree with DK Prof.

While the northern & southern borders are open, this brouhaha is a laugh.

Let the offshore company buy the facilities on probation.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 11:00:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sydney7629:
Is this merely a political issue or does it truly involve national security?


Merely a political issue.



I heard a guy on the radio this morning state that who controls the port has nothing to do with security.

He basically stated that...

The US Coast Guard controls what ships come into the port
The US Customs controls what goes on and off the ships
The US Immigration controls who comes off the ships.

If that is the case and the companies themselves aren't responsible for security, is this thing getting blown out of proportion?




The guy is right. The UAE wouldn't even be 'controlling the port', but 'managing the terminals' (i.e. deciding who unloads what where/when).

Really it's a non-issue. I'm sure we'd be more comfortable having US firms do the work (I know I would) but as for security - it doesn't make an iota of difference.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 11:20:46 AM EDT
aren't there any us companies that know how to run those ports??
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 11:23:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By torstin:
aren't there any us companies that know how to run those ports??



Doesn't look like it, foreign interests have been managing them for decades...
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 11:23:55 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 11:27:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By torstin:
aren't there any us companies that know how to run those ports??




Perhaps its cost ineffective so they pass on the deal.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 11:28:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/23/2006 11:31:00 AM EDT by dport]

Originally Posted By MKSheppard:
First of all, I call bullshit on the Dubai deal; these people were buddy buddy with Osama, the Taliban, and who knows what before 9/11. They only distanced themselves after the events of that September morning.


You do know that Ronald Reagan, back in the 80s, matched dollar for dollar the funding for the Mujahadeen? The US funded the Afghani Muj while the Gulf States funded the Arab Muj.
ETA: The point here is we encourgaed this for a long time. In fact, our LE types liked the Taliban because they cut down on opium shipments.
Not to mention there were two Americans amoung the Embassy Bombers in 1998. And the 9/11 terrorists trained in the US. Terrorism happens sometimes, despite what the .gov wants. What is important is if a .gov, not its people, actively support and harbor terrorists. The UAE doesn't.


Secondly, even though they may not control the security of the ports directly, the security directors (Coast Guard) still have to co-ordinate with the port owners, so that all sides can keep things running smoothly.


And who has the final say? The USCG. You also forgot the port authority, immigration and several other LE/security agencies.


Thirdly, All moslems must aid other moslems in jehad. It says so in the Koran itself. So all the information on security measures in the ports will be open to Moslem fanatics, and having friends in the port owner's seat will help ensure that "certain" cargoes get "special" treatment.


To bad that isn't happening. Some of our best Allies in the GWOT are Muslims.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 11:31:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Paul:

Originally Posted By JarheadPatriot:
ONLy 5% of the 12 MILLION containers that come into our ports gets inspected.......IS THAT GOOD SECURITY?....who controls what?....apparently not much control at all.......IMO



Not much at all but that's not going to change if a U.A.E. company runs the port operations department in those cities.



Nobody expects it to (one way or another) it's not the job of the Stevedore...
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 11:36:34 AM EDT
The fact is that nobody checks to make sure the contents of a container matches the manifest. It is left up to whoever loaded the container. Does the container from Long Dong Wong's Tennis Shoe Factory really contain tennis shoes? We don't know because nobody checks.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 11:37:19 AM EDT
On the bright side. Let the UAE have it.
If there is an "incident" where many lives are lost
we know where to point the finger
Top Top