Lawmakers seek White House review of port deal with Arab company

[sabra]

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/13888407.htm

Lawmakers seek White House review of port deal with Arab company

Associated Press

WASHINGTON - U.S. lawmakers formally asked the Bush administration Thursday to reconsider its approval of a sale giving a company in the United Arab Emirates control over significant operations at six major American ports.

The lawmakers, including four senators and three House members, sharply criticized the UAE as inconsistent in its support of U.S. anti-terrorism efforts.

They also said the country was a key transfer point for shipments of nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya and was one of only three nations that had recognized the Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government.

"Outsourcing the operations of our largest ports to a country with a dubious record on terrorism is a homeland security and commerce accident waiting to happen," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. "The administration needs to take another look at this deal."

[madaboutharry]

1. This is just plain unbelievable.

How can they justify allowing port security out of U.S. control? It sounds like a bad storyline out of a B movie.

[Kagemusha]

4. They can't because they didn't hand over *port* *security*.

Of course I don't think DU'ers will care about that nuance and perhaps that is wise and correct, but no, everything that's been written about this in no way indicates that *port security* per se, will be in anything but firm American control.

[madaboutharry]

6. You didn't get the nuance of what I said.

I did not mean "port security per se." If major operations are out of U.S. control, I think it is not unreasonable to think that security could be compromised. But I guess some DU'ers like to read into things.

[Kagemusha]

11. I think automatically assuming this means security's compromised

is in itself reading an awful lot into this. It's assuming that any corporate control of anything from an Arab country is in and of itself a security breach. I generally don't like jumping on a bandwagon of that nature.

When I see someone site a specific reason security would be compromised just because of who's paying the cheques for managers of the commercial operations, I'll have to take that into careful consideration. Because frankly, what I've heard of existing, 100% American port security is not encouraging.

Please don't take my not wanting to read into things as wanting to read into things.

[Mithras61]

7. Quite correct... they are talking of handing over...

commercial operations, not port security.

Of course, we all know that there is no way to move international cargo through a port without DHS or Customs inspecting it, right? I mean, we have so MANY security personnel, that NOTHING ever gets through without being checked, right? :sarcasm:

Thanks to W_rong, our border security has never been worse!

[henslee]

2. This is insane. There are two Americas. One that cuts deal$ with

no conscience and everyone else.

[sasha031]

3. Bush's priorities have never been in the the US

.

[WhiteTara]

10. now if that had been the sheik's ass

this picture would be dead bang on. :rofl:

[tanyev]

5. I'm just surprised they didn't outsource it to Wal-Mart.

[TexasLawyer]

8. This stinks to high heaven

After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S., the UAE was identified as a major financial center used by al-Qaeda in transferring money to the hijackers.

We don't need the UAE handling a vital part of US national security.

[demosincebirth]

9. How come this hasn't made Headlines in the media?