Posted on 02/17/2006 6:15:19 AM PST by Dark Skies
It places OPERATIONAL CONTROL over strategic ports to a foreign country in time of war. This rises above politics IMO.
Having trouble with your CapsLock key? lol
Having trouble with your CapsLock key?
***
Yes he is. It is stuck on CFR
Guaranteed that there's a lobbyist and or US firm tied to this.
The notion that the UAE firm is paying $6.8 billion to acquire six major U.S. ports probably comes as a huge surprise to those agencies that currently own and operate these ports and have no intention of selling them.
There's an erroneous fact on your part right there.
Dubai Ports World is acquiring a single company (who knows it is being purchased BTW), Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., that operates out of the six ports in question. At issue is actually Dubai's commitment to fighting terrorism. Dubai Ports World will not be controlling security at any of these ports but the question is "can Dubai be trusted to prevent any infiltration of its own operations...i.e. could a terrorist get deadly cargo on board and get it delivered into a port."
I suggest that is a legitimate question.
From the article in Forbes...
The Homeland Security Department said it was legally impossible under the committee's rules to reconsider its approval without evidence that DP World gave false information or withheld vital details from U.S. officials. The 30-day window for the committee to voice objections has ended, the department said.Separately, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said it will conduct its own review of the deal and urged the government to defend its decision.
In a letter to the Treasury Department, Port Authority chairman Anthony Coscia said the independent review by his agency was necessary "to protect its interests."
Also, you will note that some of the legislative complaints are coming from republicans.
Any company that has control of port operations would have to be intimate with all security measures, even if performed by someone else. To let a foreign company, from a country that supports the very terrorists we are at war with, to have knowledge of security operations at major U.S. ports, is lunacy! Muslim countries, and the companies these countries control, are not our allies. There loyalty is to their religion that is at odds with U.S. security. Are the leaders of our country really that dense?
Blind faith?
I'm curious to see if the donks are going to do any of the heavy lifting on this one particularly when it comes to the "jobs" issue. More likely, they'll just be happy to demagogue it.
Schumer is already on board, so he and I agree on 1 thing, but even if he wasn't, I wouldn't waste the email. Clinton, I won't waste it, and my congresscritter is such a socialist, he's also a waste of time.....
There's nothing erroneous about the FACT I presented. The editorial specifically stated that DPW -- through its acquisition of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (also known as P&O Nedlloyd to those who have seen their containers in intermodal yards or on the nation's highways) -- would be acquiring six U.S. ports. This is utterly and completely FALSE, as P&O doesn't OWN a single one of these facilities.
Separately, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said it will conduct its own review of the deal and urged the government to defend its decision. In a letter to the Treasury Department, Port Authority chairman Anthony Coscia said the independent review by his agency was necessary "to protect its interests."
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey -- not P&O -- owns the port facilities in the New York harbor. P&O jointly operates (with a company called Port Newark Container Terminal) of one of the Port Authority's seven container terminals under a lease arrangement with the agency. If there are any details of the proposed acquisition that the Port Authority finds unacceptable, the agency can simply terminate the operator's lease on the property and prohibit any vessels from the UAE-owned company from making port calls in New York and New Jersey.
Let's think about this a bit.
Any company that "does port operations" is going to be working closely with those who provide the "security functions" _in_ those ports, whether they be federal agents or otherwise.
That means that the operating company is going to have much more of a "working knowledge" - perhaps quite intimate knowledge - of exactly what kind of security measures are in force, and how they are applied.
And if they have such knowledge, they will know where the "weak points" may be, and perhaps even know how security measures might be circumvented.
Over time, we could actually see Islamist "moles" work their way into the port operations, with the intent of aquiring such knowledge and a vector through which weapons might be smuggled into the United States.
I do not put this past them. Witness as to how the World Trade Center attackers operated "in plain sight" until it was time to strike.
I thought the Republicans (in general) and Bush (in particular) were supposed to be PROTECTING America from the possibilities of terrorism and attack. And they're turning over operations of the gateways of American commerce to Arabs? This is "security"?
Oh, sorry, of course it isn't. Taking your shoes off to get on an airplane *IS*.
- John
Read about the maffia during WW2 when they were needed at the docks. Do you think the mooslimes will do the same thing????
Anytime a politico says trust me, I put my hand on my wallet and slowly back away. I consider all politicos lying, cheating, worthles scum.
The terrorist can also infiltrate Emirates airlines and using the logic of the article, Emirates airlines must be as banned from the US or even to go further any airlines from any muslim country must banned from entering the US because of potential infiltration by terrorists. Why is that we suddenly are making a big deal about Dubai Port handling 6 US ports and we have never made any issue about Muslim countries airlines conducting many flights a week to and from the US?
Are we that much in need of foreign investment funds that we would sell out our security?
Need some strong 'pubs' on that legislation that the Hitlery just attached her name to to block this deal from occurring.
No way should this be allowed to happen.
Man, there's been some really TERRIBLE reporting if what you say is true.
It's going to be really interesting to follow the development of this story. Thanks for the info.
I hear ya' !
I am trying to phrase my letter to the WH, congress, my senators but I can't come up with anything strong enough to get my sentiment across without being downright rude and profane. Sometimes profanity just says "it" best.
This is an absolute outrage to me. What the freak is GB thinking? He's not thinking...how can he get in bed with Dubai??? What was the secret deal made under the table? What did Bush trade for this? Protection from Iran when we do finally go to war with President Turbanjahmid in Iran? Too many people are involved and gave the ok. There has to be some hand holding, back washing here.
But what?
It's terrible reporting, followed by idiotic political posturing based on hysteria that is completely untrue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.