I don't object to letting the UAE take over mgmt of our ports.

[TygrBright]

Let me say this again:

I do not object to letting the UAE take over management of our ports.

Got that? OK, now on to the point:

I OBJECT TO ANY COMPANY/INDIVIDUAL/ENTITY/ORGANIZATION THAT IS NOT UNDER THE LEGAL CONTROL AND JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT MANAGING OUR PORTS!!

Sorry for shouting. It seems that a lot of people (mostly pols and media pundits--who'd'a thunk it!) have been misunderstanding, willfully or otherwise, why I, Ms Average American, have my knickers in a twist over this port control deal.

You see, I, Ms Average American, have been making the error (mea culpa, I admit it, and I'm damn' sorry for it) of assuming that since 9/11 (maybe even since the first Trade Center bombing, or the USS Cole bombing,) the U.S. Government has had the basic common sense to ensure that certain things vital to our national security, like cargo entry ports, DUH! have been under the control of entities responsible to the U.S. Government. Maybe even government itself, what a concept! Government controlling vital points vulnerable to Really Bad breaches of the U.S.'s physical security! Damn, what an idea!

I guess I could cut the gubmint some slack in the case of existing contracts let out to entities under the jurisdiction of stable democratic nations who are long-term allies of America, although even there, my own bizarre brand of common sense would dictate that when those contracts were up, they wouldn't be renewed. We'd notify the holders politely, of course, with an apology on the order of "Look, sorry, it's not your fault, but we're taking charge of this stuff now that real threats to our nation's physical security are apparent, we're sure you understand..."

But I really, really would have thought that by FIVE EFFING YEARS after some guys who don't like the U.S. managed to destroy huge major buildings in the middle of a major U.S. city and kill thousands of Americans in the process, we'd have SOME of our act together, security-wise. Like the really IMPORTANT stuff. You know, like places where thousands of large, anonymous-looking containers enter the country every day?!? Is that too fucking much to expect?!?!?

Don't whine at me about "anti-Arabism" or "nativism" or any other half-assed misinterpretation of my concern. My concern is NOT about the color of skin, the professed religion, etc., of whoever is in control of critical security resources. It's about whether they are, ultimately, responsible to the American people for our safety. And I just don't feel comfortable putting those security resources under the control of someone who A) Is primarily responsible to their damn' shareholders for making a damn' profit off of running the resources; and B) Is responsible to someone other than MY government for basic trivia like safety and security.

Cripes, call me a weenie, if you want, for having that concern, but PLEASE, get it RIGHT. It's not about "the Ay-rab thing" or "the foreigner thing." It's about the "anyone who isn't responsible to the U.S. Government" thing.

sheeeeshh....

exasperatedly,
Bright

[ThomCat]

1. Yeah! What TygrBright!

:applause:

[ThomCat]

6. Yeah! What TygrBright SAID! (Ooph, I'm a moron sometimes)

It must have something to do with being in the 700 Club.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

2. I agree. If I had known they were being run by UK

companies, I would have been against it.

I don't think people realize what this kind of control of a port facility allows.

Even some US companies should not be allowed to do it.

[demdiva]

18. Companies owned BY THE GOVERNMENT

I believe I'm correct in saying this, but someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but the bigger issue for me here is that this company is actually owned and operated by the UAE. I don't care what government it is (although yes, some government would be worse then others), a foreign government, any foreign government, should not own assets that are critical to our national security.

Our constitution states that anyone born outside the U.S. cannot be President of the United States because they might be more loyal to another government to us, but we let another government run our ports? This makes absolutely no sense to me.

Bravo for your posting!

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

22. Well, there is owned by a government and

OWNED by a government, if you know what I mean.

I am more than willing to bet there are MI6 men in the UK ports company.

[retread]

3. Nevertheless, I must admit to extreme delight watching chimpy and co.

hoisted by their own petard.

[President Jesus]

4. first, all companies managing our ports

ARE under US jurisdiction and have to follow all US laws and regulations.

Secondly, please point us to your posts over the past decade where you've expressed your boiling outrage over what you believe to be a massive National Security™ threat posed by foreign entities managing 80% of US ports. Just one post prior to last week would be fine.

The way people tie together 9/11 and DPW is exactly as disgusting to me as Bushco tieing Iraq to 9/11. Explain to me how it's different with real facts, or just stop it.

[ThomCat]

7. That's a bit harsh.

You can disagree, you can feel that your opinion is more justified that others (whether that's true or not).

But demanding a prior posting history... Or telling people to shut up unless they can meet some standards you set....

Please lighten up.

[TygrBright]

9. You're missing the point.

First, in adopting the persona of "Ms Average American," my purpose was to point out that this hypothetical "average American" doesn't pay attention to the details of national security because they delegate them to the government, and assume that the government is doing it the way they (the hypothetical average American) would want it to be done.

Then, when they get the equivalent of a slap across the face with a wet fish (IOW, their nose is suddenly rubbed in the fact that the gubmint is not only not doing it they way they, the hypothetical average American, would want it done, but in a fashion that runs counter to everything they have been conditioned to believe is "right,") the fecal matter hits the rotary air cooler.

Now, while technically anyone doing business in the US is, indeed (as you so correctly point out) under US jurisdiction for the purposes of doing that business, their ownership doesn't have the obligations of US citizenry, do they? The US cannot arrest and try and punish the owners, the best they can do is bring civil suit, freeze assets, etc.

As another poster downthread also points out, there is a helluva lot more to port security than who manages the logistics, and we've done, you should excuse the expression, fuck-all to deal with ANY of the really glaring issues of port security since it was brought to our attention that nasty people with violent intentions can and will damage our physical infrastructure and kill our citizens right here in the (gag) "homeland." I'm sorry if you equate the linking of port security and 9/11 to the specious and self-serving connection blivet drew between Iraq and 9/11, but the fact remains that 9/11 was a precipitating incident of enormous importance that did, indeed, make it obvious that the US is vulnerable to terrorism on our own soil. Therefore, it's pretty fecking clear to me that there is a bloody tight connection between port security and the risks of terrorism.

And finally, you missed my point altogether, which is that the flap is NOT ABOUT DPW, it is about port security AS A WHOLE ISSUE, and the management of our ports is JUST ONE ASPECT of that larger issue, and although (again, as the same poster downthread points out,) it is a comparatively small cog in the overall mechanism of port security, it DOES happen to be the specific cog AT ISSUE NOW. I would purely LOVE IT if this turned out to be the mote that finally tips the balance and gets the hypothetical average American concerned about that whole issue. Indeed, I think there's a good chance.

Finally, why should I do your work for you? You're welcome to use DU's wonderful search functions to examine all my posts back to 2000, and vilify me as much as you please based on the results.

But don't expect me to care, particularly.

clarifyingly,
Bright

[President Jesus]

10. why vilify? Because you are using fear to score political points

Fearmongering is perhaps the number one reason why I hate Bushco, and what you are doing with this particular issue is NO different.

You are consciously blurring the line between "port security" and "port management" for the sole purpose of scaring "Ms Average American" to "our" side, actually more accurately, against Bush. You even go the extra mile and throw in a 9/11 reference. Gee, who else does that at every turn?

It's just disgusting in my book. But hey, it's a 'free' country, and you're free to sell your soul by using xenophobia all you want.

[TygrBright]

11. I'm just curious...

...are you saying that there ISN'T a link between port management and port security?

Can you explain that? Maybe I'm wrong, heck, it won't be the first time.

I'm also rather baffled by how you got "xenophobia" out of my post(s), since I neither hate nor fear non-Americans, nor do I believe it is in the best interests of other Americans to do so. Merely, I believe that some functions related to national security should be under the most direct possible control of the US Government. Since that's what we pay the US Government for, as it were.

bewilderedly,
Bright

[President Jesus]

27. are you joking?

I'm also rather baffled by how you got "xenophobia" out of my post(s)

Xenophobia does not mean "hate" for others, it literally means "fear" of others. Your entire post raises (actually encourages) the specter of terrorism having a wide-open entry through our ports, and gee, in light of this week's news about an Arab company taking over "port security," I guess that means we're only a couple days away from a mushroom cloud over a major American city.

Port security is the responsibilty of the Department of Homeland Security (which includes the Coast Guard), the US Treasury (Customs), and local Port Authorities. On top of that, all of the longshoremen are Americans that live in the communities they are serving. Are they now going to instantly turn into wild-eyed Muslim fanatics because their boss's boss's boss's boss's check is signed in Dubai?

Have you ever flown on a foreign airline out of the US? If so, what nationality were the baggage screeners when you left, and what nationality were the customs agents when you returned? Just curious, because this is virtually the same thing.

[TygrBright]

29. Well, no, I neither said nor meant...

...any of these things:

>>gee, in light of this week's news about an Arab company taking over "port security," I guess that means we're only a couple days away from a mushroom cloud over a major American city.

Port security is the responsibilty of the Department of Homeland Security (which includes the Coast Guard), the US Treasury (Customs), and local Port Authorities. On top of that, all of the longshoremen are Americans that live in the communities they are serving. Are they now going to instantly turn into wild-eyed Muslim fanatics because their boss's boss's boss's boss's check is signed in Dubai?<<

You can project whatever you want into your interpretation of what I wrote, but JFYI, I'm generally pretty straightforward about saying what I mean, and about NOT saying what I DON'T mean.

In this case, I made it pretty clear that the attention of the average American has now been drawn to port security issues by the flap about DPW, and this, hopefully, will open up the larger issues to a broader debate and expose the fuck-all we've actually done to make our ports less vulnerable as targets of opportunity since it became clear that terrorist action on US soil is a goal of at least one organization. With any luck, the flap will result in people holding blivet and his cronies accountable for doing fuck-all to make ports less vulnerable, and might, just MIGHT result in some improvements in REAL security for ports as well as other key sercurity points and resources.

I also made it pretty clear, and I stand by my opinion in this case, that there is indeed a link between security and port management. Port management has details about scheduling, shipments, bills of lading, destination and origin, etc., that can be extremely security-sensitive. Not to mention control over hiring, firing, personnel management, etc., in all kinds of positions where individuals have knowledge and access to security-sensitive details. And yes, I stand by my opinion that such functions should be under the most direct possible supervision of the US Government and the government organizations established and funded to assure our security.

THOSE are the points at issue, not hysteria-mongering about xenophobia, racism, the "fear factor," etc. It will be much harder to jack Americans into a state of mindless fear and xenophobia when we have confidence that REAL issues of priority security are being appropriately and competently addressed. Ensuring security under direct government supervision of key installations like ports, intermodal transport infrastructure, key communications installations, facilities where dangerous chemical, biological, and other materials are produced and stored, etc., will give Americans a better understanding and sense of control and eliminate the material for opportunists like blivet & co. to play the 'tera! tera! tera!' cards for their own greedy purblind agendas.

You won't convince me otherwise, sorry.

adamantly,
Bright

[EVDebs]

24. It's the hypocrisy that's soooo obvious. Look at COSCO/LongBeach'98

Duncan Hunter's screed against COSCO/LongBeach port
http://www.house.gov/hunter/jul6-98.htm

and this beauty

Red Chinese Army Controls America's Largest
West Coast Container Port, Long Beach, California
http://educate-yourself.org/tw/coscocontrolslongbeachsh...

with the 'it's all Clinton's fault' backdrop. The current Dubai Ports World dustup is a living, breathing, testament to imperial Republican hypocrisy. Freeper hypocrisy at its illuminated BEST. I just love it.

[lyonn]

31. This is a Country that has a Company that conducts

their port operations in a way that allow the books to be closed in some of their port activities, like the Mitsubishi Van that is the one assumed to have been used to bomb the ex Arab leader, Hariri in Lebanon. The investigation was stopped at the UAE port, as follows, per Robert Parry, Consortium news.

"But the year-old mystery of the truck-bomb assassination of Hariri also has wound its way through the UAE’s port facilities. United Nations investigators tracked the assassins’ white Mitsubishi Canter Van from Japan, where it had been stolen, to the UAE, according to a Dec. 10, 2005, U.N. report."

snip-

At that time, UAE officials had been unable to track what happened to the van after its arrival in Dubai. Presumably the van was loaded onto another freighter and shipped by sea through the Suez Canal to Lebanon, but the trail had gone cold in the UAE."

Just some food for thought. The bushco's want Syria to be the fall guy for the killing and they have witnesses, apparently bought and paid for, to testify to the fact that the Syrians did it.

[mdmc]

5. ok

but why wait until now? Free trade crosses all borders. We have a choice of isolationism or free trade. Halliburton would not be any more subversive to the American government. Peace!

[chalky]

14. And those are our choices? Halliburton or the UAE?

No one else out there?

Huh.

[mdmc]

35. well, there may be many more

perhaps there is a better way.:kick:

[Benfea]

8. You're hollering about the wrong thing.

I'm not crazy about foreign-owned companies running port security, but there are much bigger fish to fry, and on the scale of things, this is pretty minor. Our port security is a mess. We've had report after report about the sorry state of our port security, including numerous suggestions about what we need to do to fix it.

Are we talking about any of that? No, we're talking about a relatively minor point instead.

I've said this before and I'll say this again: I think this whole dust-up is a Republican-manufactured "controversy" designed to do two things: keep people talking about something other than the glaring gaps in our homeland security (e.g. only 5% of incoming containers are scanned for radiation-emitting materials), and to give Republican candidates the opportunity to distance themselves from the Bush administration just in time for the 2006 elections.

[Wordie]

12. Now that makes a LOT of sense. Thanks, benfea! eom

[chalky]

13. Except that this little dust-up has only brought attention to the fact

that only 5% of incoming containers are scanned.

Trust me, the neocons around me are suddenly scrutinizing all aspects of the ports, and they're shocked, SHOCKED, I tell ya to find out about the 5% scans. To us that's old news. To them, it's a news flash.

And they're not happy. With ANY of the Republicans.

[Adelante]

20. No, they're not just finding it out

Bob Graham, Wesley Clark and other Dems, the trucking industry, lots of people have been publicly criticizing this exact point about the containers for years. It's old news to all of the Repugs. They just have to react now because their asses are on the line in November. It's sad your neocon acquaintances trusted these yoyos. But don't let them say it hasn't been well-published information. Let them know they backed the wrong party.

[chalky]

21. You act as if only elected officials can call themselves "Republicans".

I'm talking about the people on the street. The hoi polloi. The unwashed masses. The "mythical little guy". These people are emerging from their comas and they DO NOT LIKE WHAT THEY'RE SEEING.

[Adelante]

23. Yes

That's obviously who you were talking about - "your neocon acquaintances" as I called them.

[NoMercy]

15. Some sence at last. If the republican congress repositions against Bush

and against this Ay-rab deal -- they can escape the quagmire Bush has led them into.

[EVDebs]

26. Politically, before the Nov '06 elections, these Rs MUST abandon Bush

NOW. He's political poison for the next two years anyway. Besides he's got the reverse-Midas-touch.

[DemReadingDU]

16. Managing the ports is all about Big Business

More money for the wealthy.

Bush won't let this deal get away. First thing he said is that he would veto any bill to stop it, no doubt to ensure that his wealthy cronies would gain in the profits.

[Adelante]

17. There are just three issues

As I see it.

1. The ports are insecure and have been all along. That's not relevant to who operates a terminal in a port (just as it is not relevant to who leases a terminal in an airport - foreign or not foreign). The ports are operated by Port of Authority agencies who are responsible to the U.S. government. US Customs and the Coast Guard - this is where the problem is in terms of security. The major problem is minimal inspection of container shipments. The Bush Administration has not secured the ports in the five years since 9/11. That's Issue Number One.

2. Secrecy and cronyism. There was a government committee who approved this deal. Why didn't it get to Congress if it didn't? Congress had 30 days to object to the committee's approval, but didn't object or didn't know it was happening. Where is the oversight? Where is the transparency?

3. The United States pretty much abandoned the sea transport industry beginning decades ago. I can remember Jerry Nadler in New York yelling about this abandonment of an industry, for decades. Foreign firms didn't just take over this industry yesterday, because they want to infiltrate our ports with terrorists, but because there was a commercial vacuum. Foreign firms are the industry leaders today, so that's who operates anywhere there are ports in the world, just like Korean women took over the nail care service industry a while back and were doing all of America's nails. I wonder if we have enough American companies left in the industry to keep our ports running. That's very sad, but it's where we are.

[Adelante]

19. Re point #2

See Conyers press release of 2/23/06

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/news/releases.html

At a briefing yesterday to staff of the House Armed Services, Intelligence, Homeland Security and Judiciary Committees, representatives from the Administration detailed the process they undergo for reviewing proposed transactions involving foreign investors. In that briefing, representatives from the Departments of Treasury, Homeland Security, Defense, State and others explained that after a 30-day review by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS), an inter-agency committee chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury, the members of that Committee exercise their judgment as to whether a subsequent 45-day review and preparation of a report is needed. As with almost all other cases involving foreign investment, in the case of the DPW transaction, the Bush Administration elected to forego such a review.

We have serious concerns about the described process because, as explained by the Administration, the review occurs only if the CFIUS decides in its discretion to do so. This does not appear to be a proper interpretation of the law. Under 50 U.S.C. App. § 2170(b), the CFIUS must conduct the 45-day investigation “in any instance in which an entity controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government seeks to engage in any merger, acquisition, or takeover which could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the United States that could affect the national security of the United States.” This amendment, known as the “Byrd Amendment” and enacted in 1993, was intended to mandate that a review occurs if the transaction in any way “could” affect our national security. Prior to the Byrd Amendment, the determination to engage in this 45-day review period was discretionary to the Administration.

[EVDebs]

28. Wise points. Too bad the spinmeisters won't keep them in forefront

They just keep harping on their talking points missing the main points !

[lyonn]

32. Well then it's time for a change

It looks like this whole Port issue has brought the light of day to the operations of our American ports that control all international cargo and in particular that stuff coming in. It is time our government did its job.

How can foreign countries make money managing a port and the U.S. can't?

[EVDebs]

25. Dubai Ports World will play the role Ptech did in the next 9-11 attack

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=491949&mesg_id=491949

along with the accompanying wargames, the Ptech FAA/NAS computer access was critical insider information during that day...

http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html

If you bring this up, first, Freepers can't speak about it cuz they don't know about Ptech. Second, they'll have to agree with you (once informed of Ptech), which is anathema in any debate with a Freeper. Third, this is a golden opportunity to bring up Ptech's outsourced access to a national security related set of computer systems in the first place (FAA and NAS computers, along with other intelligence related systems).

Vetting and security are lax, which Rs screamed about during Clinton's administration, yet they held the Congressional powers...makes you wonder doesn't it ? How much did the R-controlled Congress get paid off.

Corruption/Iraq lead to R's losing in '06 and '08 AND THEY COULDN'T STOP IT THEN OR NOW. A new broom will sweep clean ! Dems are coming.

[Minnesota Libra]

30. You all are missing the BIGGER picture here.........

......it's NOT about who runs our ports, unfortunately it's far beyond that now. The BIGGER PICTURE is what the return will be for turning over our ports to them?

Answer: permanent military bases in the Middle East, regular flow of oil, and an endless war that will control us and them.

[unlawflcombatnt]

33. Right On

I completely agree with your sentiment. Labeling opposition to this treasonous move as "racist" or "nativist" is what the Bushites do when they have no other arguments. The only real "reason" for the deal is to put more money in the pockets of Corporate America and strengthen their profit-motivated ties with the UAE.

U.S ports should be controlled by the U.S. Not the UAE, Britain, or anyone else.

How about returning to some basic "free-market" policies? If the port can't be sold to an American company for the asking price, then reduce the asking price. Isn't that what free markets are all about? Aren't the Right-Wingers always touting the "free market"? Why don't they start supporting it then? Sell American ports to the American(s) who'll pay the most. That's free enterprise.

If no Americans will buy them for any amount, then nationalize them. That's what's normally done with an essential service or industry that cannot be operated profitably by private business.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

Economic Patriot Forum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[Adelante]

34. But nobody's selling the ports to anyone

They don't need to be any more nationalized than they are in order to again be dominated by American companies if the nation commits to it. The ports are already owned by states and operated by Port Authorities of states. The work is done by American union workers. Dubai Ports is a stevedore company who will lease the same terminals and employ the same workers to move its cargo as were employed by P&O and whoever came before. The American stevedoring industry needs to be rebuilt, yes, and supported by our government, I agree with that. But Americans didn't lose position in this industry overnight and it will take a long time to rebuild it once a commitment can be made. But focus on the nationality of the company's ownership is a mistake, imo, as it makes it too easy to turn attention from the port security failure, which is the most immediate crisis, and the biggest BushCo crime in this regard. Zeroing in on mismanagement of homeland security by BushCo and the secrecy and lack of Congressional oversight of the government process, avoiding the blinding emotional hot buttons is smarter, because there is simply no need to alienate more of our global neighbors than we already have. Keeping foreign business out of the ports will do nothing but lull the American public's awakened concerns - it will not do a damn thing for making the ports more secure.