Port Deal, let's hear from the experts, shall we?

[northzax]

The Council on Foreign Relations: http://www.cfr.org/publication/9918/uae_purchase_of_american_port_facilities.html#1

the managers of the ports in question: New Orleans
Baltimore I>,Baltimore II,Philadelphia,Miami,Tampa

To be fair, on the flip side: the ILA

and finally, Jerry Nadler (NY) who basically asks for more time. Something I'd have more sympathy for, frankly, if someone had cared two months ago when the merger was proposed. It was in the washington Post and the Baltimore Sun, at the very least.

So, anyone have any other actual experts with commentary?

edited to fix link problem

[mikehiggins]

1. If we don't have any experts just wait a few minutes

The Bush Family will trot a whole bunch of them out in short order.

The bottom line is that this deal underlines just how hollow and empty the Bush Administration claims of preeminence in national security concerns really are. Whether its container ports or a wide open border, profits and business trump the safety of this nation every single day of the week.

[twaddler01]

2. I definately want a second opinion

My first reaction is bad....but I need some more info...

[northzax]

3. did you read the links?

seriously, did you read them? the CFR is hardly Bush friendly (remember, he wouldn't take questions from them) and the port managers in all the ports don't have a problem with it.

[twaddler01]

8. I just don't see the people being happy with it

already heard two complaints about it from democrats Robert Menendez and Hillary Rodham Clinton and two from republican governors George Pataki Robert Ehrlich...

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/103-02202006-615691.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060221/ap_on_go_co/port_security

I'm sure they like the money:
"With the $6.8 billion purchase of P&O, DP World is now the third-largest port-operator in the world."

[northzax]

11. the politicians, right?

how about the professionals? the people for whom port operations and security is their life's work? do they carry more weight than a couple of Senators looking for political points? even if they are on our side?

Dubai World Ports is a wholy own subsidiary of a holding company owned by the Emir of Dubai, one of the eight Emirates that comprise the United Arab Emirates.

[Oilwellian]

72. LOLOL....the CFR is hardly Bush friendly??

I suggest you Google CFR and Poppy Bush's favorite phrase "new world order." Nuff said.

[twaddler01]

95. Heh...yeah

"The Council on Foreign Relations is the American Branch of a society
which originated in England...(and)...believes national boundaries should
be obliterated and one-world rule established...
The Trilateral Commission is international...(and)...is intended to be the
vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking
interests by siezing control of the political government of the United
States."

--- "With No Apologies", by former Sen. Barry Goldwater

[SPKrazy]

4. So You Support This Deal?

Personally, I don't think any foreign government should be operating our ports.

I don't even think foreign companies should be either.

I think it is a security risk.

I don't give the council on foreign relations much credibility as they are largely a group of globalists with agendas that aren't necessarily that of securing our nation.

[northzax]

10. well, then we have a problem

because almost every terminal (not the port, the individual terminals) in the US are run by foreign companies. that includes every other teminal in the Port of New York/New Jersey, every terminal in Boston, every terminal in Baltimore, every terminal in Miami, every terminal in New Orleans, every terminal save one in Houston, every terminal save one in Los Angeles/Long Beach, every terminal in San Diego (except the military base) every terminal in San Francisco, every terminal in Portland/Astoria and every terminal, save one, in Seattle.

did I miss any?

Did you know that Emirates Air, the airline of the UAE, leases several gates at JFK? same kind of deal, they pay a fee to use the space. Do you object to that as well?

Hey, I cite the CFR and all the managers of the ports in question. I get back "bad feelings" Seems like I should take their word over a bunch of people's 'gut feeling' about having someone run the ports.

[flyarm]

12. foreign companies..not foreign nations...big difference!

this sale is to a foreign nation..no way no ho0w is this going through!

fly

[SPKrazy]

16. Why Even Foreign Companies?

I mean, don't we lose something when we sell our security for the cheapest price?

[flyarm]

29. oh i agree 100% ..but no foreign nation should have any investments in our

ports or airlines..hell * was ready to sell off our airlines last week to foreign countries..

i have had it..i want all their asses out of my country..hell reagan did the same damn thing..the beginning of the sell off of this country began under reagan!!

get these fuckers out of our government..i have had it!

fly

[northzax]

17. well, the government of China

which really controls all enterprise there, runs a terminal in Long Beach. And the government of Singapore basically owns the company that runs San Francisco and Seattle...

[SPKrazy]

25. I Do Know This And I Have Found It Disturbing.

And I think that we are not better off for these facts either.

[KansDem]

55. The last time I checked, the governments of China, Singapore, et al

haven't had their banking systems used to finance terrorists attack on our soil. Nor have their citizens been active in terrorist attacks on our soil.

U.S. officials have praised the UAE for steps to protect its booming financial sector against abuse by terrorism financiers. Money for the September 11 attacks was wired through the UAE's banking system, according to U.S. officials. Two of the September 11 hijackers were UAE citizens.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060217/pl_nm/security_congress_ports_dc

Also, reports of UAE Royal Family hobnobbing with Osama have also surfaced.

This is what I find disturbing...

[northzax]

62. quick

what was the last attack on a US airliner?

five points if you said Richard Reid's shoe bombing.

what, he's a British citizen? help! the British are coming! run for the hills!

[tabasco]

79. Absurd argument.

Are you really trying to equate UK terrorism vs. the US with Middle Eastern terrorism vs. the US, bacause a single UK citizen was involved in an attempted attack? That is about as good an argument as citing the CFR as "not friendly to Bush." LMAO.

[northzax]

81. well, everyone says that two UAE citizens were involved in 9/11

I'm just pointing out that UK citizens have been involved in terrorism against the US as well.

[KansDem]

92. But not the British government...

When you have a government sympathetic with terrorists, and whose banking system was used to finance terrorism, and whose citizens were involved with terrorism, then you have a volatile mix. And one that I do not want to see in control of our ports.

As far as the UK citizen, show me some evidence that the British banking system has been used to finance attacks on our soil along with UK citizens participating in such attacks.

Also, a photo of Tony Blair hanging out with Osama would be nice.

[SPKrazy]

14. You Can Cite Whoever You Wish

But I have a right to not trust CFR as well.

And as for all of these ports, yes I am opposed to foreign companies running them at all.

Why is it that they do? Money? Maybe we should start thinking of our security over who will do it for the cheapest.

Cheap got us 9/11!

And the CFR is in my mind complicit in the letting of 9/11 happen.

So why in the world would I trust an organization that has staffed this administration with their people. (And most admins in the recent past as well)

[twaddler01]

19. Outsourcing

Before we know it over half of the companies in the US will be outsourced I swear....:eyes:

[northzax]

21. it's not outsourcing

by definition. outsourcing is moving jobs offshore. All the jobs remain in the US of A.

The leasing of ports to companies from all nationalities has been the common practice in the US since, well, we were a colony of the UK. It's how international trade works.

[twaddler01]

23. They do get money for it though n./t

[SPKrazy]

24. And that isn't good for our security either

If the rubber hits the road, and we were actually to go to war with someone that could fight back and hit here, we have lost a good deal of our manufacturing infrastructure. Especially things like steel.

We are up shit creek in my opinion.

And outsourcing keeps climbing the skills ladder. Even Radiology Reports are sometimes read in India or other places where it is cheaper to pay a Radiologist elsewhere in the world to read a CT scan or X-Ray than it is to pay an American Radiologist to do it.

[twaddler01]

20. I don't trust *

Since I don't trust *, I can't trust this move....sorry

[flyarm]

33. cfr= illuninati!..bilderbergs & trilateral..get them the hell away from

our government!! expose those sob's!

its about time americans grow up and learn who those fuckers are!

illuminati..look it up..they are the cfr!!

fly

[flyarm]

5. i have all the expertise i need..two hijackers were from UAE..

they ran the banks that covered up who paid ..what to ..who involved in 9/11

our state dept , and britians , and canadian , and australia all have terrorist warnings to their people who visit UAE..thats enough for me..

and that barely scratches the surface!

no mean no..they have no business nor does any other foreign country have any business running our ports!


these fuckers recognized the taliban..we did not take down Osama because many of the royal family were with osama..

fuck them and fuck *..
newark is in my back yard...no way no how!

tell the so called experts that passed this to stick it up their asses...this will not get through NJ!!

there will be a revolt!

unlike anything we have seen since vietnam!

fly

[flyarm]

6. no second opinon..the opinion of the people of the states is all they need

these are our states...fuck anyones second opinion!

5% of these containers are checked..less than !% of cargo on aircraft are checked..when the hell are americans going to wake up..

* doesn't give a fuck about national security..he and his criminal family are up to their eyeballs with these fucking criminals..and i have had enough!

if people in the midwest or south want this shit..so be it ..but keep these criminals hell out of my state!
fly

[TreasonousBastard]

7. As I mentioned in several other posts...

the Port Manager for Newark was interviewed on NPR this morning and he had no problems with the deal. Talked about the current foreign management of most of the port's seven terminals and saw no problem with Dubai coming in.

Sorry, no link but it may have been on Morning Edition.

And, my personal expertise is no match for the port director's, but I did spend a lot of years insuring ships, cargos and terminals, much of it in NY harbor, and have a slight clue how things are run there. I have no problem with it unless someone comes up with something concrete, not just idle speculation because it's a made-up "enemy."

I've dealt with a lot of terminal operators, and my biggest problem was always them trying to save money, not dark conspiracies.

[flyarm]

9. well you didn't listen to corzine nor the governor that just left..

they both said no way no how!!
corzine said he will do everything in his power to stop it..through courts if need be..he will sue *hes ass off..got that?????????????

and he will be joined in a suit by thousands of citizens of nj , ny and pa!! i assure you of that!

as for second opinions...well let me tell you how many funerals i went to after 9/11 ..more than i ever want to the rest of my lifetime...

those graves and memorials are all the second opinions i ever want!

fuck * and anyone who supports this!

and if you think i am mad you have no clue..

the UAE has covered up the murder of my co-workers and my hometown had the highest number of victims of 9/11..they were my neighbors..the parents of kids my son went to school with..they were people i grew up with..they were friends..and friends kids who died on 9/11...



this will not happen....get this ..it will not happen..we will not allow it..

maybe other places in the country are ignorant to what we know..but trust me on this ..you didn't see NY'ers or NJ people vote for * did you???????

we know * was involved in 9/11 ..and we will be damned if he will get away with this!
not this time!

fly

[northzax]

15. ahh, so the people can abrogate contracts?

are they prepared to run the Port of New York/New Jersey without the help of contractors? Since the ENTIRE port is contracted to foreign owned companies. think they'll sign contracts with the Port Authority knowing that they will be cancelled as soon as the mob turns against them?

you can sue all you want, but it won't matter. it won't go anywhere.

[flyarm]

35. its not going to happen..not in NJ!! i assure you of that! n/t

[Clarkie1]

13. I don't need an "expert" to teach me common sense.

Americans should be managing American ports.

I feel a popular uprising coming, and this issue is the catalyst. Americans are sick and tired of foreign enterprises buying up America and the outsourciing that goes with it.

Enough is enough!

[northzax]

18. how about Airports?

Emirates leases gates at LAX, JFK and Newark. Should those contracts be abrogated as well?

[Clarkie1]

22. Absolutely.

If it's an American airport, port, railway station, or any other mode of public transportation on our soil Americans ought to be managing the enterprise.

This is not rocket science, and it does not require deep analysis. It's common sense!

[northzax]

27. but, they won't fly here if they don't have gates

Ever flown United into a gate that says "American" or "delta"? Every flown Southwest into a Frontier gate? it doesn't happen. If airlines can't keep their personel and equipment at the gate, they won't fly. That'd be great for the US airlines, I guess, but it's kinda isolating, ain't it?

and yes, there are American, Delta and United gates at Dubai International Airport.

[Clarkie1]

32. Americans can manage their gates.

When they come here they are on our soil. It they won't fly here that's there loss, not ours.

Edit: And no, it's not isolating at all. They are welcome to come to our airports...with the gates managed by Americans.

I would expect the same when visiting their country...citizens of whatever particular country managing the gates. It's just common sense. If they want to allow us to manage their gates on their soil that's their business, but that doesn't mean we have any obligation to reciprocate.

[northzax]

36. so you would kill international air travel

since US airlines won't fly to places without their people (or do you want the people you don't trust to run a gate running it when a US-flagged plane is there?) they won't fly here, we won't fly there. so it's isolating and prices for air travel will skyrocket. well, that would be a good thing, wouldn't it?

[Clarkie1]

38. read my edited post. also...

Even if you disagree with me on the airport gate issue, comparing airport gates to an ENTIRE port is absolute nonsense. How would you feel if U.A.I. were managing the LaGuardia airport in it's ENTIRETY?

[flyarm]

42. you argument is nonsence!..

an airport gate is not the entire airport...and our airlines have to follow the rules of foreign countries when we are on their soil as they have to follow our laws when they are on our soil...

you argument is silly!

from a retired flight attendant of one of the airlines involved in 9/11, ny based.

fly

[Clarkie1]

49. What is truly silly is comparing the leasing of an entire Port

the management of a paricular airline gate.

[northzax]

56. and which one of the ports is leased in its entierety?

post it. here, now. If you do so, in the next five minutes, I will donate $50 to the charity of your choice, in your name.

you know, I'll be generous and make it easier. in which if the ports in question will DWP control more than 60% of the cargo loaded or unloaded at that port in the next 12 months.

I'm serious, you made a claim, back it up. Every single one of these ports has a website, every single one lists the terminals, every single one lists who operates each terminal (you are looking for P&O Ports and Shipping, to give you a hint) do your homework, find the evidence and I will pay up.

please?

[northzax]

57. does American, or United

lease gates for their exclusive use at foreign airports? yes or no.

[TreasonousBastard]

83. Yes, and it may interest everyone to know...

that United has contracted with Swissair to handle its cargo operations at Newark airport. Just as El Al and Air France have contracted with Delta.

Such deals are fairly common. While there are legitmate arguments over exporting jobs, lowered wages and the usual social-economic problems, no one anywhere in the transportation industry would do anything but laugh hysterically at all the tinfoil jingoism going on about these deals.

Oh, speaking of Newark airport, not that long ago one of the cleaning contractors was busted for hiring illegals to sweep up Terminal B where international arrivals is. As the INS agents and Port Authority cops were falling over themselves to guard gainst illegals getting off planes, other illegals were sweeping around their feet and emptying their trash cans for years until someone blew the whistle.

Turns out that that contractor still works the other two terminals, and they just brought in another company for B.

It all makes ya wonder, doesn't it?

[flyarm]

90. there are many stories that would make your hair curl..

i just won;t tell them as i would not want to jeapordize any security in any way
that is why i am hell bent to stop this ...

the so called best security * bullshits about is only hogwash!

what national security,..where was *hes security on 9/11..he is a fucking liar..and worse in my book!
you really don't want to know what i think or feel...about the fucker!

fly

[SPKrazy]

28. You Got It Clarkie!

Right on the money!

[flyarm]

37. they don't lease the airports! big difference! n/t

[northzax]

41. they lease the gates

and they lease the terminals in ports. it's the (shh) exact same thing

a gate in an airport is the same as a cargo terminal in a port. same fucking thing, one deals with loading and unloading airplanes, the other with loading and unloading cargo ships.

[Clarkie1]

45. It is not the same thing at all.

Leasing an entire port is far different than leasing the Gates of a particular airline.

Get real.

[flyarm]

46. no it is not!! bullshit! n/t

[northzax]

91. yes, it is!

see, I can post one liners too!

[Inland]

47. No, that's the equivalent of a ship going into the port.

You tell me which country has an airport managed by a corporation owned and controlled by a foreign country and THAT'S the analogy.

[northzax]

58. and you tell me

which port in the United States is managed, entirely, by a company owned by a foreign government.

really, tell me.

[flyarm]

65. no foreign government should have anything to do with the entries

to our nation period!

so tell me what happens if they are running our ports and we end up in war with them..just like the * crime family finally took down saddam..remember saddam and osama were the * family best friends at one time..so what happens if UAE decides to shut our ports down ??

wake up! stop making exvuses for this ..this is criminal!
fly

[Inland]

76. That would be the UAE company.

The controlling interest is in the UAE state. Interesting when a state owns a majority interest in a company: the company often avoids profit maximizing behavior in order to obtain political objectives.

So. How much do you know about the UAE? Anything good?

[northzax]

85. quite a bit, actually

how much do you know?

the controlling interest is in the holding company, for what that's worth. (not much, probably)

how much do you know about Norway, China or Singapore? they all have bascially controlling interest in companies that run terminals at US ports.

How about the US Navy? they run several terminals in Dubai...

[Inland]

86. You're certainly not changing my mind.

But you now make me want to have all those other arrangments looked into as well. If the countries that "run terminals" are for terminals in a port managed by a foreign corporation, I'm basically freaked.

"Control" isn't a useless concept. I want everyone responsible for the corporation to be right here and without a passport that will get them to a faraway corner of the world.

As to the US Navy "running" terminals, any country that lets' a foreign NAVY tie up knows exactly what it's getting into. The danger is that the admiral will order an attack, not that a mole will infiltrate or that a bribe will cause some paperwork to get altered.

The UAE is precisely the type of state that Bush is theorizing might get swept away in his own democratization scheme. Other than that, it's very lack of transparency and rule by semifeudal elites means that it's entire rule is inside baseball. If the UAE is an ally on terror, why, we'll lend them our Navy and pay for its oil and it can go into a business not related to security.

[flyarm]

59. Inland you are correct!! IF A FOREIGN air carrier DOES NOT FOLLOW OUR

laws and rules at an airport in this country they loose their lease and their gates pronto!


the other analogy is dead wrong!

fly

[northzax]

63. and if a port operations contractor

violates their contract, that too would be cancelled, what's your point?

[flyarm]

66. they could also shut down our ports!!..this is just stupid..beyond stupid.

end of discussion...

so we shut them down ..and they shut our nation down...thats the difference..

fly

[Inland]

75. I don't think that contract cancellation is a protection against terror.

It's a capitalist conceit that everyone in the corporation is solely concerend with money and that nobody would risk losing the contract for the company. Not so.

[muriel_volestrangler]

61. Not a foreign country, but BAA completely manages Indianapolis Airport

http://www.indianapolisairport.com/pages/baa.html

and, coincidentally, a Spanish company is considering bidding for BAA: http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article347201.ece

So Britain's main airports may well be owned and run by a company from another country.

[northzax]

69. and let's not forget

that richard reid was a uk citizen...

[Inland]

73. Yep. I don't want foreign companies controlling that infrastructure.

I don't like it at all. I don't want a controlling interest in a company running an airport, port, railway in a person outside the jurisdiction of the US. Just that simple. In a country that just put another 30 million bucks into expanding it's NSA snooping facilities in an emergency measure, we can pay a couple of bucks more in restricting management.

I would feel the same if the British Government controlled the corp. It's bad enough if foreign individuals own it.

[Clarkie1]

43. Bingo! n/t

[BeFree]

26. You miss the point

The point is that * stepped in it.

Really, just let him walk. Don't try to clean him up and make him look good, please!

[northzax]

30. so, for short term poltical gain

you're willing to associate with the worst of the nativist crowd? that's kinda sad.

[BeFree]

44. No

I just won't lift a finger to help *.

And if you expect me to praise the naked emperor becuase he wears a hat you are sadly mistaken. * is the enemy and any thing that hurts him, helps me. The UAE port deal is a pile of crap he has stepped in. Let him wear it. Don't clean it up, please.

[Telly Savalas]

60. Hey. You sound like a liberal!

Shouldn't you be posting at a liberal discussion board or something?

[BeFree]

67. And cleaning up behind...

...the elephant is why liberals are so in power, eh?

[Telly Savalas]

71. Quite to the contrary...

the so-called opposition in the United States has spent the last 5 years (and beyond) going out of its way to reinforce the right-wing assumptions that keep the GOP in power. Playing to the fears of the Middle East as many are doing on this issue only continues this trend.

[BeFree]

77. I'm not playing no fear

Others might be, but I am very tolerant of their right to be disgusted.

Now, there having been presented the assumption that it should be ok for * to have given anything to a 9/11 enabler, we should do nothing more than make sure the crap he stepped in gets as ugly as possible.

That's why I feel the OP missed the point. It isn't about justice or fairness, it is about defeating the enemy.

[Telly Savalas]

89. Justice and fairness are precisely what defeats the enemy.

[ddzimm]

31. Sigh…you lost me guys…

I will vote Dem, as always, as the lesser of two evils, but

WHO THE HELL CARES WHAT THE TRURTH BEHIND THE TOOL IS! If you can swing 20% of the Republican vote the Dems way in November using this as a tool WHO CARES!

Seek your experts in whatever afterlife you think there will be.

The first light of dawn through smoke of burning buildings, burning flesh...
another day of harvesting. Souls, like fog, yearn to rise to heaven
or hug the earth like serpents, seeking cracks in the very ground
stained by crimson blood and ebony charcoal things, unknown.

Here and there the wounded cry guttural symphonies, screaming.
That which once was a man, now pieces held together by fabric and will
pours blood like a fountain, in tribute to the great thundering bombs.
Mindless, yet efficient, lacking of pulse, pain and fear.

To reminisce of battles in the past, where steel meets flesh and bone
with hatred and fear and primordial blood lust, sword impaling
the belly, flesh a vagina for the phallus of blade: rape, not love
or even hate. Control, domination and power, marches like thrusts.

Great savage beasts of steel snarl and roar, to vomit shells into one another,
then victor to charge away while vanquished ruptures, screeches in
flaming death, clouds black and vile rise to mark their graves,
impermanent markers by thousands, trunks of giant burned trees.

It grows by the day, a savage insatiable relentless beast, as those with nothing
left to loose unleash warriors and leaders spew words of righteousness
and condemnation, children play and men and women chill from fear
and burn from hate. Buttons are pressed and keys are turned, finally.

The
Bombs
Know nothing
Of redemption lost
Their breath is unforgiving
And smells of burning everything

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

34. Because when I'm looking for what's good for Joe/Joanne Sixpack,

I run to the CFR.

Oligarchs-R-U.S.

[northzax]

39. so give me a good example of someone who is looking out for joe sixpack

who can make a rational arguement against this deal. really. post one. please.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

48. Look around.

There are several here.

If the working class would stop looking for answers from the monied elite, they probably wouldn't become the monied elite themselves but the monied elite would be looking for work.

[Clarkie1]

51. Read the thread you recently started.

The rational arguments are all there...if you have common sense.

[flyarm]

54. here is your answer!! for joe sixpack...

and fuck joe sixpack ..

these are from other posts here at du..sorry i didn't get the du links...but thank you to the people who posted them!
fly

UAE and BCCI >>>


July 5, 1991: Outlaw BCCI Bank Is Shut Down Complete 911 Timeline

The Bank of England shuts down Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), the largest Islamic bank in the world. Based in Pakistan, this bank financed numerous militant organizations and laundered money generated by illicit drug trafficking and other illegal activities, including arms trafficking. Bin Laden and many other militants had accounts there. <Detroit News, 9/30/01> One money-laundering expert claims, “BCCI did dirty work for every major terrorist service in the world.” <Los Angeles Times, 1/20/02> American and British governments were aware of its activities yet allowed the bank to operate for years. The Pakistani ISI had major connections to the bank. However, as later State Department reports indicate, Pakistan remains a major drug trafficking and money-laundering center despite the bank's closing. <Detroit News, 9/30/01> “The CIA used BCCI to funnel millions of dollars to the fighters battling the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan” according to the Washington Post. A French intelligence report in 2001 suggests the BCCI network has been largely rebuilt by bin Laden (see October 2001). <Washington Post, 2/17/02> The ruling family of Abu Dhabi, the dominant emirate in the United Arab Emirates, owned 77 percent of the bank. <Los Angeles Times, 1/20/02>

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?se...



This is interesting too.



Mid-1996-October 2001: Ariana Airlines Becomes Transport Arm of al-Qaeda Complete 911 Timeline

In 1996, al-Qaeda assumes control of Ariana Airlines, Afghanistan's national airline, for use in its illegal trade network. Passenger flights become few and erratic, as planes are used to fly drugs, weapons, gold, and personnel, primarily between Afghanistan, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Pakistan. The Emirate of Sharjah, in the UAE, becomes a hub for al-Qaeda drug and arms smuggling. Typically, “large quantities of drugs” are flown from Kandahar, Afghanistan, to Sharjah, and large quantities of weapons are flown back to Afghanistan. <Los Angeles Times, 11/18/01> About three to four flights run the route each day. Many weapons come from Victor Bout, a notorious Russian arms dealer based in Sharjah. <Los Angeles Times, 1/20/02> Afghan taxes on opium production are paid in gold, and then the gold bullion is flown to Dubai, UAE, and laundered into cash. <Washington Post, 2/17/02> Taliban officials regularly provide militants with false papers identifying them as Ariana Airlines employees so they can move freely around the world. A former National Security Council official later claims the US is well aware at the time that al-Qaeda agents regularly fly on Ariana Airlines, but the US fails to act for several years. The US does press the UAE for tighter banking controls, but moves “delicately, not wanting to offend an ally in an already complicated relationship,” and little changes by 9/11. <Los Angeles Times, 11/18/01> Much of the money for the 9/11 hijackers flows though these Sharjah, UAE, channels. There also are reports suggesting that Ariana Airlines might have been used to train Islamic militants as pilots. The illegal use of Ariana Airlines helps convince the United Nations to impose sanctions against Afghanistan in 1999, but the sanctions lack teeth and do not stop the airline. A second round of sanctions finally stops foreign Ariana Airlines flights, but its charter flights and other charter services keep the illegal network running. <Los Angeles Times, 11/18/01>
People and organizations involved: al-Qaeda, Ariana Airlines, Victor Bout, United Nations, United Arab Emirates, Taliban

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timelin...


and more!!!

http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/25osama.htm

UAE royals, bin Laden's saviours

March 25, 2004 12:04 IST


The Central Intelligence Agency did not target Al Qaeda chief Osama bin laden once as he had the royal family of the United Arab Emirates with him in Afghanistan, the agency's director, George Tenet, told the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States on Thursday.

Had the CIA targeted bin Laden, half the royal family would have been wiped out as well, he said.

The 10-member bipartisan commission is investigating the events leading up to the September 11, 2001 attacks in the US.

[flyarm]

70. here is another reason for joe sixpack!

a thanks to kpete!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x496170

AP: White House Had SECRET AGREEMENT with UAE CO.
From the Associated Press

Arab Co., White House Had Secret Agreement

Thursday February 23, 2006 2:16 AM
By TED BRIDIS

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. It chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.

As part of the $6.8 billion purchase, state-owned Dubai Ports World agreed to reveal records on demand about ``foreign operational direction'' of its business at U.S. ports, the documents said. Those records broadly include details about the design, maintenance or operation of ports and equipment.

The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.

``They're not lax but they're not draconian,'' said James Lewis, a former U.S. official who worked on such agreements. If officials had predicted the firestorm of criticism over the deal, Lewis said, ``they might have made them sound harder.''

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5640688...

OR

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060223/ap_on_go_pr_wh/port...

[twaddler01]

40. hmmm....this is striking

ALSO ON DU: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x488962

UAE royals, bin Laden's saviours
March 25, 2004 12:04 IST

The Central Intelligence Agency did not target Al Qaeda chief Osama bin laden once as he had the royal family of the United Arab Emirates with him in Afghanistan, the agency's director, George Tenet, told the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States on Thursday.

Had the CIA targeted bin Laden, half the royal family would have been wiped out as well, he said.

The 10-member bipartisan commission is investigating the events leading up to the September 11, 2001 attacks in the US.

A host of Clinton and Bush administration officials have testified before the commission.

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Amritage told the commission that it was impossible to send troops to Afghanistan against the Taliban and Al Qaeda without Pakistan's cooperation and building a new relationship with India.

"US sanctions against Pakistan on the nuclear and other issues complicated the matter and these had to be dismantled," Armitage said.

He also suggested if the US Congress wanted to show displeasure with any country, it should think of other methods than imposing sanctions.

Former White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke has charged that fighting terrorism was not the top priority with the Bush administration. The top priority, he suggested, was Iraq, not Al Qaeda, a claim refuted by the White House.

Clarke alleged that the White House delayed implementing the proposals he had made for eight months and adopted them only after 9/11.

http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/25osama.htm

[northzax]

52. people keep citing this

without really knowing what happened. First off, shall we remember that this was 1999 (Clinton administration, you know, the husband of the Senator so opposed to this deal?) And that the UAE had helped us track down the bomber of the Cole? So maybe we didn't want to piss off the most moderate Arab state in the Middle East, the place we use as out major port in the region?

oh, right. Clinton was planning the 9/11 terror attacks with bin Laden, so he didn't want to kill him, and then he couldn't pull it off in time, but Bush took over and got it done. is that how it went?

and it's not possible that someone could have tolerated bin Laden before 9/11, when his targets were purely military and government, and turned on him after he targeted civilians?

[Generator]

74. Yeah and people really don't know what happened

around so much that involves anything to do with 9/11. And that includes the UAE, money, and Bin Laden. I believe that is the point. It's hitting something deeper than all the rational points you can list from the council on foreign relations. Quite the progressive outfit there. I almost choked seeing it listed on DU as a place to link for believing an argument. The most moderate Arab nation? According to who? Bush and the business community correct? One of only three that recognized the Taliban. Still doesn't recognize Isreal. I guess if we pay them off enough they might not let the next terrorists use their country as a hub to plot against us. But if they do-people like you can talk about how that was so long ago. Wouldn't want to lose their "support."

The point wasn't that Clinton was in with Bin Laden-the point was that the UAE (and this is still the damn point isn't it?)-that the UAE's royalty and their "support" (also known as billions) is more important than our security. Don't want to piss them off indeed. That sounds like blackmail.

[northzax]

84. just out of curiosity

does Israel recognize the UAE? Just wondering. In fact Israel and the UAE have fairly high level contacts. or is Israel somehow excused from the game?

As for the Taliban, was there another government in Afghanistan during the late 90's I wasn't aware of?

some examples of the absurdity of the 'recognition' argument. Does Cuba exist? the US doesn't 'recognize' it. how about Taiwan? Again, no US 'recognition' so where was my TV made, exactly, Formosa?

As for Dubai being the most liberal. Please list for me, if you will, the Gulf states that have enshrined, in their constitution, equal rights for women? Please list the Arab States with a woman on the governing council. please list the Arab states with a Jew on the governing council. please list the arab states with universal adult sufferage (starting next month, true, but enshrined in law so far) for all religions, races and creeds? Please list the Arab states with more women than men attending university. Please list the Arab states with more than 15% of the workforce as women. Please list the Arab states where citizens can travel outside the country without needing an exit visa. Please list the Arab states, well never mind, you apparently have your own definition of 'liberal'

but I have been convinced. All foreign contracts on US soil are immediatly eliminated. this should be fun. I hope Haliburton enjoys running a bunch of ports.

[Clarkie1]

53. It's all related. Anyone with common sense can see that. n/t

[Gabi Hayes]

50. see, this is all about symbolism...9/11 aftershock writ large

it doesn't MATTER what the actual facts are, WRT the takeover.

this is all about ARABS ostensibly being in control of one of the most sensitive parts of our infrastructure, and Condi's "smoking gun/mushroom cloud" has come back to bite the fascists in the ass, REAL HARD

people of all political persuasions are scared shitless of being blown up or irradiated, thanks to their constant scare tactics, and, even if there isn't any difference between the UAE's handling of our ports, the Brits, or whomever else they choose, the pugs will never, ever succeed in convincing anyone differently, and it's because of their propaganda campaign ever since 911 happened

they have reaped what they've sown, and has anyone ever more deserved it?

even the junta's staunchest reporters are well aware of the fear that grips the sheeple, and they know which side they need to be on if they want to survive politically

maybe somebody has said this already on this thread. if so, sorry for the repeat.

seems pretty obvious

[Geo55]

64. Dude , Where's my country ?

"But the majority of port terminals across the country are foreign-run. For instance, more than 80 percent of the terminals in the largest U.S. port, the port of Los Angeles, are operated by foreign companies. "

We are WELL on our way to becoming caretakers of what was once a great idea (country) .

[flyarm]

68. there is a major difference of a company running our ports and a foreign

Nation running our ports..especially a nation that right now..today our state dept has travel warnings to our citizens about!

as well as canada, australia and britian..for terrorism!

fly

[johnaries]

78. I read the articles, and they did not change my position at all.

In the first article by the Council of Foriegn Affairs, the only "objection" that they claimed was raised was because 2 of the hijackers were from the UAE. This is patently untrue, there are many other objections (which have also been posted all over DU), and this actually is the least of them.

Several of the articles mentioned that they deal was cleared by committee. However, all proceedings are classified. We have no way of knowing what was discussed, what issues were explored, or what le them to ok the deal. They will not even tell us WHY it is classified. I smell another Cheney Energy Task Force.

As far as the opinions of the current port managers, I noticed several of them had "no comment". As for the rest, all i have to say is that we simply need to look at how the Dubai Port is run.

According to the CIA, the Dubai Port is a major transshipment point for illegal Southeast Asian drugs. (this is also posted all over DU, so I won't bother with the links)

As mentioned in one of the articles you posted, illegal nuclear weapons materials were funnelled through the Dubai Port.

This certainly doesn't inspire confidence in the abilities of this port company.

Further, it is a state-owned company. Although the UAE is our ally (although they haven't done a very good job of policing terrorism in their own country), the ME is a very unstable region, and if the government is overthrown or if members of the Royal Family who aren't sympathetic to the US take power, then the new government will have control over key operations of our major ports.

Another point, the 5% of containers that are inspected by the Coast Guard and DHS are determined by checking the manifests. If Dubai Ports are infiltrated (which seems quite common), it would be easy for them to fake the manifests.

No, your articles did not do anything to change my mind. Perhaps YOU should read some of the articles in the many other DU posts on this matter.

[northzax]

87. well, to answer your points

there have been four objections I have really seen, even on DU, about this deal.

The first is that two of the hijackers came from UAE. useless, since the Shoe Bomber came from the UK (remember him?) and Jose Padilla came from the US of A. Terrorists come from all over, nationality is not a guarantee of anything.

second: that UAE was a source of financing for 9/11. This is simply not much of a case, the biggest banks in the region are in UAE, I could open a bank account in Dubai over the internet tonight and wire money anywhere in the world tomorrow. Just like Switzerland. If you want to send untraced money, you use Switzerland (not as much any more), Dubai, or the Caymans.

3: the falcon hunting thing, which I won't bother to address again (simply remember that it was under Clinton that this happened, either Bush and Clinton are in cahoots, or...)

4: a vague fear.

True, the Dubai Coast Guard equvalent isn't real good, apparently. Luckily, ours is better, I hope, or it should be. contraband is the responsibility of the coast guard, border patrol and customs, not the terminal operator.

manifests are prepared at the originating port, not the destination one, why wouldn't they simply fake the manifests somewhere else? it would be a lot easier. Sure, it might make it easier to smuggle things out of the US, but not into the US.

as to the instability problem, first, a change of government that the US did not officialy recognize would cancel these contracts (since you can't contract with a country the US doesn't recognize) and second, the US has a fairly large military presence in Dubai, that's a nice stabalizing force, I think. Also good for immediate retribution, a kind of ultimate MAD.

[flyarm]

88. here is another reason the UAE shouldn't own anything in this country

and the osama / * connections!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/22/01030/7961

snip:

Updated Title: The Dubai-Al Qaeda Connection: Smoking Gun for Bush?/poll
by Hummingbird
Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 10:10:30 PM PDT
Lots of stuff has been going back and forth over the whole Dubai Ports scandal, but one thing that has been neglected has been the phrase in the media:

"There are connections between the United Arab Emirates and Al Qaeda" but it's been vague and hasn't really said much, other than some people from the Emirates participated in 9/11. Considering that any independent person from there could have been involved, that's not much of an indictable offense.

snip:

The Emir of Dubai, and the head of the family that owns Dubai Ports is an associate and hunting companion of Osama Bin Laden.

snip:

Between 1995-2001 the Arab Elite went hunting with Bin Laden:


After the Taliban takes control of the area around Kandahar, Afghanistan, in September 1994, prominent Persian Gulf state officials and businessmen, including high-ranking United Arab Emirates and Saudi government ministers, such as Saudi intelligence minister Prince Turki al-Faisal, frequently secretly fly into Kandahar on state and private jets for hunting expeditions. General Wayne Downing, Bush's former national director for combating terrorism, says: "They would go out and see Osama, spend some time with him, talk with him, you know, live out in the tents, eat the simple food, engage in falconing, some other pursuits, ride horses. One noted visitor is Sheik Mohammed ibn Rashid al Maktum, United Arab Emirates Defense Minister and Crown Prince for the emirate of Dubai." While there, some develop ties to the Taliban and al-Qaeda and give them money. Both bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar sometimes participate in these hunting trips. Former US and Afghan officials suspect that the dignitaries' outbound jets may also have smuggled out al-Qaeda and Taliban personnel. On one occasion, the US will decide not to attack bin Laden with a missile because he's falconing with important members of the United Arab Emirates' royal family (see February 1999).

read the whole thing...please..fly

[Gabi Hayes]

80. is this guy an "expert?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=481615&mesg_id=481615

his blog...heavy on the 30 Weight....skip the first few pieces: Thomas Friedman, and most of the egregious Frank Gaffney; the rest is pretty interesting

[Gabi Hayes]

82. how about this guy?

"I'm not worried about who is running the New York port," one senior inspector for the International Atomic Energy Agency said, insisting he could not be named because the agency's work is considered confidential. "I'm worried about what arrives at the New York port."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x496559

[A-Schwarzenegger]

93. ...moved...

[converted_democrat]

94. I've been against this from the start, but this confirmed it for me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x498780