Bush will allow arab company to take over 6 major seaports

[Biggy]

"President Bush said Tuesday that a deal allowing an Arab company to take over six major U.S. seaports should go forward and that he would veto any congressional effort to stop it.

The Senate's Republican leader had promised just such an effort a few hours earlier, and the House's top Republican called for "an immediate moratorium" on the deal.

"After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward," Mr. Bush told reporters who had traveled with him on Air Force One to Washington. "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, 'We'll treat you fairly.'"

Mr. Bush took the rare step of calling reporters to his conference room on the plane after returning from a speech in Colorado, addressing a controversy that is becoming a major headache for the White House. He said the seaports arrangement had been extensively examined by the administration and was "a legitimate deal that will not jeopardize the security of the country."

Earlier, Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist urged the administration to reconsider its decision to allow the transaction, under which a British company that has been running six U.S. ports would be acquired by Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates. Mr. Frist said he'd introduce a bill to delay the deal if the administration doesn't do so on its own.

The British company, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., runs major commercial operations at ports in Baltimore, Miami, New Jersey, New Orleans, New York and Philadelphia.

"The decision to finalize this deal should be put on hold until the administration conducts a more extensive review of this matter," said Mr. Frist. "If the administration cannot delay this process, I plan on introducing legislation to ensure that the deal is placed on hold until this decision gets a more thorough review."

Mr. Frist, who spoke to reporters in Long Beach, Calif., where he was on a fact-finding tour on port security and immigration issues, said he doesn't oppose foreign ownership, "but my main concern is national security."

Dennis Hastert (R., Ill.) joined Frist, saying the administration needed to "conduct a more thorough review." Without offering details, Mr. Hastert said in a letter to Mr. Bush that "this proposal may require additional congressional action in order to ensure that we are protecting Americans at home."

Other members of Bush's party also reacted critically. Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich, during a tour of Baltimore's port on Tuesday, called the deal an "overly secretive process at the federal level."

New Jersey will file actions in state and federal courts, Gov. Jon Corzine said. There is "deep, deep feeling that this is the wrong direction for our nation to take," he said.

But Mr. Bush, who has yet to issue a bill in more than five years in office, said sternly he would not back down. "They ought to listen to what I have to say about this. They'll look at the facts and understand the consequences of what they're going to do," he said. "But if they pass a law, I'll deal with it with a veto."

In a sign of how volatile the issue has become in the uneasy climate after the Sept 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Mr. Bush pressed the topic yet again immediately upon his return to the White House, to make sure his position would be on camera as well. "This is a company that has played by the rules, has been cooperative with the United States, from a country that's an ally on the war on terror, and it would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through," the president said after emerging from his helicopter on the South Lawn.

At the Pentagon, the UAE was praised as an important strategic military partner by both Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Mr. Rumsfeld said a process was in place and "the process worked."

"Nothing changes with respect to security under the contract. The Coast Guard is in charge of security, not the corporation," Mr. Rumsfeld said.

The administration insisted that national security issues had received a full airing before the interagency panel that reviews such transactions gave the go-ahead. In Los Angeles, Sen. Susan Collins, who heads the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said she and Sen. Joseph Lieberman sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff asking that the committee be fully briefed on the ports deal.

Ms. Collins (R., Maine) and Rep. Jane Harman (D., Calif.), a ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, said they are going to introduce a "joint resolution of disapproval" when they return to Washington next week.

Other lawmakers, including Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.) and Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) said they would offer emergency legislation next week to block the deal ahead of a planned March 2 takeover.

Both governors indicated they may try to cancel lease arrangements at ports in their states because of the DP World takeover. "Ensuring the security of New York's port operations is paramount and I am very concerned with the purchase of Peninsular & Oriental Steam by Dubai Ports World," Mr. Pataki said. "I have directed the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to explore all legal options that may be available to them."

The arrangement brought protests from both political parties in Congress and a lawsuit in Florida from a company affected by the takeover."

[JR]

i had no idea that "Great British" was proper grammar.

had to look it up.

Bush - 1
JR - 0

this very well might become the most depressing day of my life.

[ben]

Yeah, I dont think its a smart move to allow a people that shout out "death to America" to run an already somewhat vunerable structured shipping system.

Not to mention the killing these people [s] do over simple cartoons...



Ben

[JoesHO]

nothing is defferent about this than the other many mayny secret deals bush and his cronys have been doing already.

he went as far as to say he would veto ANY legislation to stop this move.

[JR]

Originally Posted by ben

Yeah, I dont think its a smart move to allow a people that shout out "death to America" to run an already somewhat vunerable structured shipping system.

Not to mention the killing these people [s] do over simple cartoons...



Ben

is there something a dubai management company can do at a port they manage that can't occure in any other port? Customs and Homeland Security and the Coast Guard are responsible for port security, not the port owner.

and since when are people in dubai are not shouting out "death to america"?

[PornoDoggy]

Originally Posted by JR

is there something a dubai management company can do at a port they manage that can't occure in any other port? Customs and Homeland Security and the Coast Guard are responsible for port security, not the port owner.

and since when are people in dubai are not shouting out "death to america"?

Uhhh ... please.

Are you really trying to say that having an "in" with the management company of a port [or anything else, for that matter] doesn't provide an advantage to people who might wish to do us harm?

For the record, I don't think port operations should be run by a foreign company - period. Not some limey bastards, not ragheads, kikes, wops, spics, micks, japs, polacks, or fucking martians.

Because of the enormous implications for national security, I'm not even sure this is something that should be left for the market to take care of.

[JR]

Originally Posted by PornoDoggy

Uhhh ... please.

Are you really trying to say that having an "in" with the management company of a port [or anything else, for that matter] doesn't provide an advantage to people who might wish to do us harm?

For the record, I don't think port operations should be run by a foreign company - period. Not some limey bastards, not ragheads, kikes, wops, spics, micks, japs, polacks, or fucking martians.

Because of the enormous implications for national security, I'm not even sure this is something that should be left for the market to take care of.

actually, i realize the ports are weak. i go to one in seattle all the time to see my friend and they dont ask for anything but to show ID. i just meant to say that it will not matter who is managing the port because the security issues are the territory of the US Govm't - so there is nothing you can't get away with at one port, that you can't at another. if security was a concern that was being properly addressed, it woudl not matter who owned the port... just like it does not matter who owns an airport.

[JR]

Originally Posted by PornoDoggy

Because of the enormous implications for national security, I'm not even sure this is something that should be left for the market to take care of.

its not. its the territory of the coast guard and homeland security. a city can own an airport.. even a private citizen can own LAX, it does not change the security requirements, screening processes etc.

[TheEnforcer]

The company also is responsible for security asw ell and has the manifests, etc. It is NOT a risk worth taking, especially as some of the deal means that the UAE government has control as well.

[JR]

Originally Posted by TheEnforcer

The company also is responsible for security asw ell and has the manifests, etc. It is NOT a risk worth taking, especially as some of the deal means that the UAE government has control as well.

its been a while since i have had to deal wiht customs from this perspective... but i am fairly confident that the port "owner" has zero to do with customs issues. customs agents are on site for that and the shipping companies/ships report directly to customs. the port owner has nothing to do with these things. thats why i started to realize after some consideration that it probably does not matter who owns the port in the sense that the relevent security issues are the jurisdiction of various federal agencies.

does it matter that a city department owns LAX? does that change the security procedures and processes mandated by the federal governmnet or the fact that homeland security oversees them and their implementation and enforcement? in reality, it should not matter if Osama Bin Laden owned LAX - thats why airport security was brought under federal control. why are ports different?

[JR]

points to me for being able to argue any side of an issue just to be annoying

[Sin]

Its going to be interesting watching Dubai business take over the world in the next decade I suppose...

Dubai is already a premium tourism destination (and I *highly* doubt they do that by having terrorist mentalities).

Two things that would get me to go to Dubai?

The Palm Islands --Designed and created specifically to increase the amount of available waterfront property they have to offer.

Burj-Al-Arab --Easily my favorite piece of modern architecture. I'd go to Dubai just so I could stand and stare at the outside of this building in person...

[Winetalk.com]

JR, how do you envision to implement security at the ports without getting the owners involved in the procedures?

Do YOU wanna give our friends from Middle East the keys to our security and it's procedures?

[Biggy]

Originally Posted by Winetalk.com

JR, how do you envision to implement security at the ports without getting the owners involved in the procedures?

Do YOU wanna give our friends from Middle East the keys to our security and it's procedures?

I wonder how Dubai, or ANY other country would feel about a US company taking ownership control of their ports.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and I have not had the time to look into this, although i'm certain there is some truth to this: I wonder how Dubai, or ANY other country would feel about a US company with strong ties to the government taking ownership control of THEIR ports. Wealth in countries like Dubai are usually tied to royalty or strong connections with the ruling powers.

I don't think Dubai is an immediate threat, and they've shown support for the war on terror which is Bush's argument, but at the same time, that doesn't mean things don't change over time, and how would we really know. Maybe us Democrats aren't as liberal as we seem, we just exercise common sense.

[ben]

A clip from CBS:

purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., by Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates, or UAE.

2 of the 911 hijackers were from the UAE (United Arab Emirates) and Money to pull of the attack as well... Isn't there news station Al Jeerzera also in UAE, and Yes, I do believe they openly say "death to America" and now to the Danes as well along with any other freedom loving civilization.

Yes, Home Land Security is suppose to handle security, but we all seen how they handled the US Gulf Coast. But more importantly pointed out in this thread is the management would LEARN the security procedtures of How port security is done.

I also agree with Pornodoggy, NO foreign company should ever be able to the U.S. because of the enormous implications for national security.

The only Good thing I see from this is GW Bush is loosing more power as now even the Reps. disagree with him...


Ben

[PornoDoggy]

Originally Posted by ben

.
The only Good thing I see from this is GW Bush is loosing more power as now even the Reps. disagree with him...

Ben

If they disagree with him on this like they disagreed with him over the Patriot Act, they will bark a lot, then roll over and play dead like the lapdogs they are.

[TheEnforcer]

Originally Posted by JR

its been a while since i have had to deal wiht customs from this perspective... but i am fairly confident that the port "owner" has zero to do with customs issues. customs agents are on site for that and the shipping companies/ships report directly to customs. the port owner has nothing to do with these things. thats why i started to realize after some consideration that it probably does not matter who owns the port in the sense that the relevent security issues are the jurisdiction of various federal agencies.

does it matter that a city department owns LAX? does that change the security procedures and processes mandated by the federal governmnet or the fact that homeland security oversees them and their implementation and enforcement? in reality, it should not matter if Osama Bin Laden owned LAX - thats why airport security was brought under federal control. why are ports different?

They have access to and control all manifests and are responsible for security because the Coast Gaurd and Homeland Security as it is checks less than 5% of the containers now which is less than adequate. There is ZERO doubt in my mind that Al Qaeda would try and infiltrate the company and then be able to try and manipulate manifests, etc. Managing the ports allows them to choose when and where cargo goes, control of the manisfests, etc. I personally think NO foreign government should be in charge of any of our ports or airports regardless of nationality, race, or religion and this is a government company.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...2115-8912r.htm

"You have to be concerned about a firm from that part of the world managing the ports," this official said. "They are more vulnerable to compromise and penetration by terrorists, even if they are just managing the port."
Company officials would be briefed on security procedures and countermeasures that, if compromised, could allow foreign terrorists to get through various screening procedures, the official said.
The Coast Guard is responsible for port security, tracking ships, crews and cargo and search vessels based on intelligence. There is no cohesive hiring or screening process for port workers, however.