Posted on 02/21/2006 10:45:28 AM PST by Sabramerican
Any port in the terrorist storm
By Cal Thomas
Feb 20, 2006
On Sunday, the Australian government issued the following alert to its citizens: "We advise you to exercise a high degree of caution in the United Arab Emirates because of the high threat of terrorist attack. We continue to receive reports that terrorists are planning attacks against Western interests in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Commercial and public areas frequented by foreigners are possible terrorist targets."
The United States has approved a business deal that would turn over the operation of six major American ports to a company that is owned by the UAE, the very country Australians are to be wary of visiting. The obvious question is: If it is dangerous for an Australian to travel to the UAE because of terrorism, isn't it even more dangerous for a company owned by UAE to own the rights to American ports where terror might be directly, or indirectly, imported?
There have been some dumb decisions since the United States was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, including the "welcoming" of radical Muslim groups, mosques and schools that seek by their preaching and teaching to influence U.S. foreign policy and undermine the nation. But the decision to sell port operations in New York, Newark-Port Elizabeth, Baltimore, Miami, Philadelphia and New Orleans to a company owned by the UAE may be the dumbest of all.
Security experts have repeatedly said American ports are poorly protected. Each year, approximately 9 million cargo containers enter the United States through its ports. Repeated calls to improve port security have mostly gone unheeded.
In supporting the sale decision by a little-known interagency panel called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), the Bush administration dismissed security risk concerns. National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said the sale of the ports for $6.8 billion to Dubai Ports World was "rigorously reviewed" by CFIUS, which, he said, considers security threats when foreign companies seek to buy or invest in American industry. Apparently money talked more than common sense.
In a rare display of bipartisanship, congressional Republicans and Democrats are forging an alliance to reverse the decision. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, has announced plans for her Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs to hold hearings. Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. - both members of Collins' committee - have raised concerns. New York's Democratic senators, Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton have also objected to the sale. Clinton and Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., expect to offer a bill to ban companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from acquiring U.S. port operations.
In the House, Reps. Chris Shays, R-Conn.; Mark Foley, R-Fla.; and Vito Fossella, R.-N.Y., are among those who want to know more about the sale. In a House speech, Foley said, "The potential threat to our country is not imagined, it is real."
The UAE was used as a financial and operational base by some of the 9/11 hijackers. A New York Times editorial said the sale takes the Bush administration's "laxness to a new level."
Members of Congress may wish to consider that the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components bound for Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan. The UAE was one of only three countries to recognize the Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government before the U.S. invasion toppled it.
The Department of Homeland Security says it is legally impossible under CFIUS rules to reconsider approval of the sale without evidence the Dubai company gave false information or withheld vital details from U.S. officials. Congress should change that law.
Last year, Congress overwhelmingly recommended against the Bush administration granting permission to a Chinese company to purchase the U.S. oil services company UNOCAL. Six years ago, when a Chinese company took control of the Panama Canal from the United States, retired U.S. Admiral and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Thomas H. Moorer warned of a "nuclear Pearl Harbor."
Congress must stop this sale of American ports to foreign interests and, in an era of terrorism, prevent any more potential terrorist targets from falling into the hands of those who wish to destroy us.
Also read:
Wesley Pruden
Putting our trust in eager emirs
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/pruden022106.asp
Ping.
$$
"The obvious question is: If it is dangerous for an Australian to travel to the UAE because of terrorism, isn't it even more dangerous for a company owned by UAE to own the rights to American ports where terror might be directly, or indirectly, imported?"
Whatever your position on this matter, that is a huge logical disconnect.
There is a difference.
Gore is like a skank one time streetwalker the Saudis picked up.
Baker and the Bushes are long time mistresses.
I thought the same thing - Australia warns against terrorist attacks coming from the UAE and we let them run our ports. It would almost be laughable if it weren't so damned serious.
"Australia warns against terrorist attacks coming from the UAE and we let them run our ports."
It was my understanding that Australia warned of terrorist attacks while IN UAE.
Al Gore, though...that is another story.
"If it is dangerous for an Australian to travel to the UAE because of terrorism, isn't it even more dangerous for a company owned by UAE to own the rights to American ports where terror might be directly, or indirectly, imported?"
Chertoff says it's an okay deal. And many others say that too. And they wouldn't lie to us, now would they? Oh, heck, let's just invite them to tea and we'll all be friends...
What I'd like to know is where does Australia get off criticizing the US on this "port" decision when they were the ones that ran the new pictures of the Abu Ghraib prison photos. Seems rather hypocritical to me. - ooo, ooo, look what the US is doing - yet they themselves are contributing to the problem of why there is an increase in islamofascism attacks.
I think that this whole deal is absurd and I'd like to know what the bottom-line deal was. What was traded, what was worked out in this secret meeting. Why was it secret? Why didn't this decision involve the companies and the governors of the states that would be affected by this move? Where were the representatives of the Port Authorities of each of these cities?
and I have a question for all. If you don't want the company sold to the Arabs, who do you want the Brits to sell the company to? It is their company so can we really dictate who they sell it to? The only U.S. company that could really take over this type of operation would be Haliburton but we all know how well that would go over. Come on, folks. If we are going to bitch about the problem, then we really need to come up with a solution. Otherwise, we're just blowing hot air.
"Why was it secret?"
On another thread it stated that, "Clinton" was behind the initial sell-out. That sums it all up for me. But think about it, First-let's sell-out to Britain(sort of safe), then we'll no longer be responsible. That's a piggly-wiggly, "I'm not responsible because look what the Brits did!"
"If you don't want the company sold to the Arabs, who do you want the Brits to sell the company to?"
The folks? that sold us out to the Brits had no right to do so. Anything involving something so critical as a port should not even be remotely controlled by anyone except loyal Americans. Most countries would never allow such a thing.
There are people among those that love this country, that believe that the way to ultimate peace, is to have a rule of law, over the entire globe. One of those is President Bush IMO, and most of those in the higher echelons of our society. It is possible to love America, have its best interests at heart, and be totally wrong. In my opinion, cedeing any of our sovereignty to ANYone or country not within our borders is wrong.
It's not Al Gore defending Prince Sultan in the 9/11 victims law suit. And imo, [James] Baker Botts isn't doing it for charity. My guess, the office Baker, Botts opened in Dubai, to complement their Riyadh office, is for prophet profit as well. Rich Arabs are the fellows GWB and Baker hang with, I doubt they see them as risks. I won't be any more shocked to see Bakers firm involved in the transaction than I will to see the Carlyle Group on the investment side.
Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel.
..................
The Ports are owned and operated by local governments. The Uae is buying a company that leases terminals.
"There are people among those that love this country, that believe that the way to ultimate peace, is to have a rule of law, over the entire globe. One of those is President Bush IMO, and most of those in the higher echelons of our society. It is possible to love America, have its best interests at heart, and be totally wrong. In my opinion, cedeing any of our sovereignty to ANYone or country not within our borders is wrong."
Yes, I agree on all accounts. Our Arab Buddies are counting on the silly putty, world peace, thought process by America. THERE WILL BE NO WORLD PEACE. Christ said so, and that's good enough for me.
They can certainly sell to anyone they wish, but we most certainly can “dictate” whether our domestic port-infrastructure is going to be transferred to their chosen buyer. Its called sovereignty. And its precisely why the CFIUS exists -- to consider security threats when foreign companies seek to buy or invest in industries with significant US based operations and/or infrastructure (a responsibility that was clearly abrogated here).
The only U.S. company that could really take over this type of operation would be Haliburton but we all know how well that would go over.
This rather bizarre talking point has been repeated to the point of absurdity.
First, Halliburton is not in the business of terminal operations.
Second, P&O is not, contrary to the impression being spread, some kind of US ports behemouth. P&O Ports (from whom Dubai Ports World is acquiring it US terminal interests), operates approximately 31 container, general cargo, and passenger terminals in New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, New Orleans, and Vancouver.
P&O has (now "had") no operations at all at the Port of South Louisiana or Houston (the two largest domestic ports in terms of tonnage by a very wide margin), nor at the ports at Bayport, Beaumont, Los Angeles, Long Beach, Huntington Tri-State, Baton Rouge, Corpus Christie, Texas City, etc., etc.
Who do you suppose operates all those other terminals, including the massive container, ro-ro, general cargo, hydrocarbon, and chemical terminals at South Louisiana and Houston. I'll give you a hint. It ain't Haliburton.
Here's a partial list of terminal operators in the US:
Charleston Heavy Lift, LLC
East Coast Terminal
EMESCO Marine Services, Corp.
Federal Marine Terminals
Gateway Terminal Services
Gulf Elevator and Transfer
Hyde Shipping Corp.
ITO Baltimore
INBESCA America, Inc.
Industrial Terminals, L.P.
J.P.S. Express, Inc.
Kinder Morgan/Pinney Dock & Transport LLC
L&L Fleeting, Inc.
Levin Richmond Terminal Corp.
Maher Terminals, Inc.
Manchester Terminal
Maritime Terminal of Pennsylvania, Inc.
Mid-Atlantic Terminal, LLC
Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co.
North Atlantic Distribution, Inc.
Pacific Delaware, Inc.
Penn Terminals, Inc.
Pacorini USA, Inc.
Rota Terminal & Transfer
Ruckert Terminals Corp.
Saipan Stevedore
Samson Tug And Barge Co., Inc.
Sun Terminal Inc.
SSA Marine
AP Moeller-Maersk
Asian Terminals, Inc.
JNPT
Lyttleton Port
BMTA
Texas Terminals LTD.
Transocean Terminal Operators, Inc.
etc., etc. -- Not to mention dedicated terminal operations by Exxon/Mobil, Chevron/Texaco, BP, Saudi Aramco, Shell, etc.
Finding an acceptable operator to pick up P&O's former interests in the 31 terminals at issue presents little or no problem. Which makes this sale and securtity lapse even more unneccesary, perplexing, and boneheaded.
I have come to the conclusion that we have not been attacked again, not because of great national security, but because we are giving the Muslims every thing they want, so why kill the goose that lays the golden egg?
We have no security on our land borders, now we want to give away our sea borders. There is no enforcement on visas except on Europeans .
The only ones being inspected and watched are American citizens as they are frisked going on planes and "observed " in the subway systems and listened to on the phone and internet by big brother.
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.