The Dubai Ports World Deal - Through a Coast Guard Veteran's Eyes

[Coastie for Truth]

The "Port Service Company" receives, manifests, loads, offloads, and transfers the containers. Normally, this is monitored for drugs -- but there are "holes." The "Port Service Company" has the "expertise" (in a "perverse kind of way") to know where the holes are.

Second, the "Port Service Company" frequently prepares the manifest. This is the legal document ennumerating what the ship is carrying, shipper, recipient, port on loaded, port to be off loaded. This guides (or misguides) the inspection.

Third, frequently the "Port Service Company" performs "ship chandlering" - that's the sale of consumables and low level spare parts. This is not inventoried or manifested.

Fourth, merchant mariners' documents. It is fairly easy to enter a country on "Merchant Mariner's Documents" (functions like a mini-passport). No visa requirements if you stay within some distance of the port. This is popular with drug dealers - and could be a route for terrorists. In many countries a "Port Service Company" can issue "documents" (note - these are not Master, Mate, Pilot, Engineer, Radio Officer licenses or "Competency Documents") which are good enough to get you off of the ship while it's in port.

Historically - in my active duty days - we were looking for drug smugglers. But these techniques could work with terrorists and dirty bombs.

And Dubai is "A" cross roads of the world.

[flyarm]

1. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PROFESSIONALLY INFORMED INSIGHT!! N/T

[liberal N proud]

2. So if a company tied to terrorist and drug traffic want

Owning a port would make that easy to accomplish what ever the task at hand.

[sabra]

3. thank you for this perspective.

[politicaholic]

4. Interesting...

I guess that just leaves the same question that everyone has swimming in my head.

I'm thinking that GW implimented this plan a little early or at the wrong time. Perhaps when he told his ME friends that he would transfer this contract to them he had higher poll numbers, was a little more confident, and had a little more power.

Or perhaps this was part of Cheney's closed door energy summit in 2001.

[Coexist]

5. kick

thanks.

[jwirr]

6. Another thread on DU was talking about the company's

connections to drug running and money laundering. For God's sake what is that idiot in the WH thinking about. This is treason.

[gordianot]

7. Excellent insight.

This is an important story

[Stephanie]

8. k&r

when will it stop?

[yellerpup]

9. Thank you Coastie for Truth

It's so much easier to argue the case when you know the rules. We will all do a better job in public thanks to your information. :applause: K&R

[myrna minx]

10. Thank you so much.

:hi:

[RazzleDazzle]

11. Aaargh -- it's worse than I thought

Thanks for the excellent information.

[havocmom]

12. Used to be "Semper Paratus". Now: 'WTF are they thinking in DC?'

Thanks for weighing in on this topic, Coastie for Truth. Helps to get broader perspective.

This might be an issue that gets people really thinking about the ramifications of 'privatization' and letting corporations operate without adequate limits and regulation.

[wordpix]

38. lol

[drm604]

13. K&R

:kick:
Thanks for the info.

[Colorado Blue]

14. Bravo Coastie, thank you.

Alas - this just off the 'net:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060221/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ports_security

Bush: Arab Co. Port Deal Should Proceed

WASHINGTON - 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.

"After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward," 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.'"

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. Frist said he'd introduce a bill to delay the deal if the administration doesn't do so on its own.

snip

[annabanana]

15. It's important that everyone understand

what's at stake here. You perspective on this board is invaluable.

[Nay]

16. Yes, thank you. My brother is a merchant mariner and I can confirm

that his merchant mariner's papers will let him off ANY ship into ANY country, subject to the distance/time requirements determined by the country.

All the other stuff you say has been confirmed by my bro also.

[Coexist]

17. FYI - I sent this to Olbermann and Cafferty - with link

I hope that was okay with you.

[senaca]

18. kick n/t.

[Nothing Without Hope]

19. K & R. The CIA handbook says that Dubai/UAE is a drug transshipment

point:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x478454
thread title (2-21-06 GD): CIA: UAE is a DRUG transhipment point (& money laundering) / PORT SALE
Comment/excerpt: From the CIA web site: “The UAE is a drug transshipment point for traffickers given its proximity to Southwest Asian drug producing countries; the UAE's position as a major financial center makes it vulnerable to money laundering….”

Goes with what you say about Dubai being " 'A' cross roads of the world." I'd be grateful if you would expand a bit on that statement.

I've cross-posted this thread there too.

[EVDebs]

39. Reminds me of Alfred McCoy's masterpiece

The Politics of Heroin: CIA complicity in the global drug trade.

They gotta have someplace to ship and launder the Afgan heroin money. After all, some of that will ultimately come back home (proprietaries) and help pay off congress to do nothing about, say, plans for a PNAC-style New Pearl Harbor, which need a 'pretext' for war.

Just rent the old classic Three Days of The Condor and see how little things have changed over thirty years.

[burrowowl]

20. KICK!

Although, what prevents a U$ owned corp doing the same. But, UAE is really over the top.
I think that ports should be under public ownership and oversight.

[ktlyon]

26. yes and if I had known that the British were in charge now

I would have opposed that management agreement also

[EuroObserver]

33. ¡Ojo!: Several hundred Brits died in the NY twin towers

on 9/11. (More than 10%, last I heard).

We will not forget.

[EVDebs]

40. So is it LIHOP or MIHOP ? eom

[EuroObserver]

63. I've always thought: MIHOP n/t

[burrowowl]

21. KICK AGAIN!

[Eugene]

22. K & R and thank you!

Your insights about this controversy are most helpful.
I'm not against the port deal in principle, but the deal
raises valid and serious national security concerns.
BushCo and Dubai Ports World have many serious questions
to answer.

[Tin Man]

23. Yep, the real weakness in the UAE deal - intelligence for Al Queda

Imagine for a moment that Al Queda is able to position a single operative into the Port Management chain, such that he can spirit-away electronic copies of Port Operations databases - pretty easy to do.

With this info in hand, Al Queda can examine the databases for patterns in US inspection practices - specifically, how the likelihood of inspection might correlate to ship manifests, shipping companies, port of arrival, countries of origin, etc..

By simply stealing a database or two, Al Queda is better able to identify the weaknesses in the inspection system - as a consequence, they vastly improve their chances of smuggling a nuke or other WMD into the US.

[On the Road]

27. That's an Excellent Summary

It's very important to spell out how the deal increases security risks.

[madrchsod]

24. watch "sum of all fears"

this is actually how "they" did it..."sum of all fears" was changed from "arab terrorists" to "russians"...

[sui generis]

25. I'm just curious about a couple of things

1. If we aren't qualified to do our own port services, why do we permanently outsource these contracts instead of contracting to train U.S. citizens?

2. Do outsourced contracts bring in their own labor? Does that labor have to conform to U.S. labor law? Does this mean that we are selling American jobs on American soil to foreign countries who are shipping their laborers here because they don't pay them anything?

3. What realistic alternatives are available and were they considered. If they were considered and rejected, what criteria was used?

[Coastie for Truth]

30. Some questions and answers

1. If we aren't qualified to do our own port services, why do we permanently outsource these contracts instead of contracting to train U.S. citizens?

We are qualified. We off-shored ship building because of relative labor costs. We off-shored ship operations (crews) for the same reason. This was a blip on the radar screen in the late 1940's but became a tsunami by the 1970's.

We were late getting into container operations -- which gave foreign port operators a head start, and never caught up.

2. Do outsourced contracts bring in their own labor? Does that labor have to conform to U.S. labor law? Does this mean that we are selling American jobs on American soil to foreign countries who are shipping their laborers here because they don't pay them anything?

For port operations - they follow US laws, hire US workers (containers mean that they need far fewer - that's all)

3. What realistic alternatives are available and were they considered. If they were considered and rejected, what criteria was used?

Example, Treasury Secretary John Snow's CSX sold its port operations business to a foreign operator. The realistic alternative is to encourage local investment.

[savemefromdumbya]

28. Only a few containers are checked (according to Tom Ridge)

Only if some red flag comes up on their database do they check a container. What happens if a so called 'innocent' shippping company is carrying a bomb?

[Tin Man]

29. ...and if Al Queda were to unravel how we SELECT containers for inspection

...then we've got a big problem, because Al Queda can smuggle WMD into the US by the route judged least likely to be inspected.

The issue with foreign operation of our ports is about potential compromise of the process by which we SELECT shipments for inspection - it's NOT at random - but rather, containers are selected for inspection based on conditions such as: time and place of origin, shipping company, manifest declaration, port of arrival, and perhaps specific intelligence.

If an Al Queda operative were to infiltrate the Dubai Ports management chain, he could gain access to their databases of shipments into US ports - and inspection histories. With that information in hand, Al Queda could 'backwards engineer' the processes by which we select containers for inspection. And armed with that intelligence, Al Queda would be better equiped to defeat the Customs Service inspection system.

[Edward Copeland]

31. Dubya finally fuflills his promise as a uniter, not a divider

It's positively amazing how no one -- aside from Jimmy Carter and the Washington Post editorial page -- is behind him on this one. I've compiled several of today's editorials and columns on the subject on my site at: http://edwardcopeland.blogspot.com/2006/02/dubai-editorial-roundup-dubya-pretty.html

[savemefromdumbya]

52. Thanks for the info

[EVDebs]

41. This is a similar function as Ptech played in the 9-11 scenario

and is still not very well covered in the media.

"""Ptech had a couple of very troubling client relationships," states risk architect and whistleblower Indira Singh, "one of which was with the FAA. One of the 'persons of interest' in the investigation had a team in the basement of the FAA for two years."

"P-tech worked on a project that revealed all information processes and issues that the FAA had with the National Airspace Systems Agency, NAS," Singh said.""

FBI shut down investigation into Saudi terror cell in Boston
http://www.madcowprod.com/mc4512004.html

[savemefromdumbya]

53. It's amazing

how so many 'leads' in the 9/11 investigation were shut down, stonewalled, suddenly classified etc

[savemefromdumbya]

51. I'm sure it would be pretty easy to do this

[Tin Man]

54. 1 port activity database + 1 statistician = patterns of inspection ID'd

You're right, it's not that hard... The difficult part is cataloguing all the shipping and inspection information into database - and that's what Dubai Ports will do as part of their normal, everyday operations.

If the database(s) were to fall into the wrong hands, the process of slicing & dicing them to reveal patterns/likelihoods of inspection would only require 1 half-decent statistician. Ya think Al Queda could find someone like that?

[savemefromdumbya]

55. & just to think Bush didn't know about the port deal?

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CAcyclist]

36. Don't call them rag-heads.

There is no place for prejudice.

[formercia]

46. Indigenous personnel (IPs)

hmmm, that's what the Iraqi police have on their armbands (IP). Another euphemism for the same old tripe....

[formercia]

34. Why smugglers and terrorists like cargo containers

The argument for the use of containerized cargo has been security, lower labor cost and reduced theft and misdirection of cargo.
Unionized labor and organized crime put the bite into handling cargo by the old bulk/break method. One advantage is that there were hands and eyeballs inspecting each shipment. During WWII, the FBI effectively used the stevedores and longshoremen to keep an eye out for Axis saboteurs and there were few incidents.
Containerized cargo has turned into a smuggler's dream and unless detected by chance inspection or intelligence, contraband moves around the world with ease.

This is a nightmare waiting to happen.

[leftchick]

35. I wish the so called newspeople knew this

instead of repeating the bullshit stories. Thank you for this.

[southern_belle]

47. I'm new

at this site, and I'm very glad I found it. There are others out there that think like I do....:loveya:

It is amazing what King George keeps getting away with!!! Now that he insists on this port takeover with the UAM, he has totally gone over the edge into insanity. He must be impeached and removed from office as he is dangerous to our country. :nuke:

[TahitiNut]

49. Welcome to DU, southern_belle.

:hi: Grab yourself a rocker, have a little sweet tea and stay awhile.

[johnaries]

50. Welcome!

A warning though... DU can be addictive!
:hi:

[southern_belle]

67. Thank Ya'll

for the warm welcome. I've discovered how addicting DU is already. I can't seem to get enough! I'm sure we will all be talking again... :toast:

[leftchick]

57. welcome to DU

so glad to have you here!

:toast:

[wordpix]

37. thanks, Coastie, you are a patriot---pls. send this info to Congressmen

[twaddler01]

42. Insane, thanks for insight!

I knew my "bad feeling" about this was indeed warrented here....

[fromthegroundup]

43. This all makes me think of this.....

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose

[DirtyDawg]

44. They're gonna keep this up....

...and before you know it geedubya and the boys are gonna have to give back all that money the UAE Royals have already ponied up. When will the real story of this being part of a 'profit deal' become the noise...this isn't just a metaphor of a disastrous administration it's the alpha and omega of what they figure is the reason they're in charge...make as much money for them and their buddies as they can before somebody finally figures it out and kicks them out.

[EFerrari]

45. Thank you, Coastie. I've always been more worried about

our ports than any other point of entry.

[northzax]

48. it does seem to me

that all those functions should be tightened up already. All it takes is one or two corrupt people at any Port Service company to do all this, right?

[combat rock]

56. Thanks. Don't forget...

..that even if these guys are 'straight-shooters,' threats to their families may cause them to unwillingly cooperate. The Muslim Brotherhood is active in the region, I suspect there are Al-Qaeda terrorist operatives throughout the UAE who could possibly blackmail for cooperation as well. That is my greatest fear and the most likely outcome to this deal - lets not see the smoking gun of this deal come in the form of a mushroom cloud, eh Bush?

Thanks for the insight.

[FormerDittoHead]

58. kick n/t

[agincourt]

59. Bush shoved this plan down,

New Orleans, which is an unlikely terrorist target, Miami, which the Bush-crime family wahabbi connections will protect, and four blue state ports. This asshole is so transparent at times. He picked blue state ports so if there is a terrorist attack he can have his media pigs defecate fullblast, like they did on the democrat authorities in New Orleans. Rove's pigboys will try to smear it that "they didn't let Bush protect them". This administration is comprised of nothing but degenerates.

[Inland]

60. Not to tell anyone, but

NO is an excellent terror target. There's no substitute for the Port of NO, as everything that is shipped through our pumped out of the Gulf with a final destination in the interior goes through there.

[TomClash]

61. This is one of the least informed threads

I've seen started since I've started posting on DU. "Watch out for ship chandlering and let's go back to breakbulk." Wow.

[Behind the Aegis]

62. as opposed to your insightful response?

Seems many would disagree with your pitiful review. But, that is the nature of site this size.

[TomClash]

64. I know why YOU oppose the deal nt

[Behind the Aegis]

65. Do you?!

Thank you for gracing us with yet another insightful post!

But, had you taken a moment to use the search function, you'd see your assertion was pure, unadulterated, bullshit! But don't let that stand in your way of making false accusations!

:hi:

On edit: I guess I know why you are OK with the deal. Again, thank-you for your fabulous retort! :eyes:

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.