AP: White House Had SECRET AGREEMENT with UAE CO.

[kpete]

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,,-5640688,00.html

OR

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060223/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ports_security_52

[enough]

1. This story is strangely unintelligible.

I count on DU to explain what it means.

[kpete]

3. THAT IS WHAT I AM HOPING FOR

looks like smoke and mirrors

[Stephanie]

11. It means they had a kind of secret wiretapping agreement with the company

And in return they were going to be very lax about rules and regulations the company was supposed to obey. They had them on the payroll, sort of.

[jim3775]

2. This story is somewhat helpful to bush

Under the deal, the government asked Dubai Ports to operate American seaports with existing U.S. managers ``to the extent possible.'' It promised to take ``all reasonable steps'' to assist the Homeland Security Department, and it pledged to continue participating in security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials.

I wonder if it was rove who leaked the info.

[CabalPowered]

7. I'm not sure about that. Not requiring records to be kept in the U.S.

is a revelation that only can weaken WH defense.

"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 said Dubai Ports must retain paperwork "in the normal course of business" but did not specify a time period or require corporate records to be housed in the United States. Outside experts familiar with such agreements said such provisions are routine in other cases."

If such provision are routine, why weren't the provisions applied in this transaction? This is going to make for some really intersting spin. It might warrant a new Scotty BBQ Bingo card. :popcorn:

[Stephanie]

12. they dont' want them subject to court order b/c it could implicate BushCO

If they are working agreements with this company regarding spying, then they don't want the company's papers subject to subpoena.

[CabalPowered]

18. That's a logical explanation

Insulate intelligence activites. If I was an evil dictator I'd probably do the same.

[jim3775]

14. Yeah you're right

The article is a bit of a mixed bag.

[KittyWampus]

8. No, it's really not. #1. White House had secret deal as well as

having two members of Administration with conflict of interest.

#2. "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."

[kpete]

9. After consulting with a former-republican,

He thinks UAE CO is getting a VERY SWEET DEAL!

[linazelle]

4. Just heard it on the news...apparently it is CYA time.-/-

[kpete]

5. CYA?

[Captain Hilts]

6. Cover Your Ass. nt

[EC]

10. So who's to say they won't sell the plans to our ports to the

highest bidder than?

[gatorboy]

13. I can't see how this could be good for Bush...

He is essentially the White House isn't he? To say that UAE had a secret agreement with the White House, yet Bush knew nothing about it, just makes him look less in control...

[txindy]

19. Yep, it makes him look awful, doesn't it?

:evilgrin:

Every stance Junior has taken has made him look worse in this. First he knew about the deal and threatened to veto any move against it. Then he didn't know about the deal until the public knew. And then the WH is discovered to have made a secret deal, yet Junior STILL hasn't said he knew about it before the public knew.

Oh, yeah, keep it comin', Junior! :applause:

[Catrina]

15. The WH?? I thought Bush knew nothing about it!! So, who in the WH

made a secret deal if he didn't know anything about it?? Is he just a front for the real president and if so, WHO IS the real president?

Seems they are making it up as they go along ~ where are all the papers to prove anything that's being claimed? Congress better not only stop this deal, but do a thorough investigation into who is/was involved, and put Bush under oath ~ this is way more than it seemed at first.

Better keep calling Congress before they get bribed or threatened to let this go away like everything else that these criminals have gotten away with.

[pinto]

16. Typical Bushco crony deal. They thought no one would notice. (duh)

Don't mean to be offhand about this, but it seems par for their course.

[MO_Dem]

20. I can't help but wonder

how many OTHER secret agreements are lurking in the shadows of this deal that we'll never know about.

[Cha]

17. So they want to trade

favors with the uae to get strategic bombing sites to finish off Iran but keep their oil?

[joanski0]

21. I just heard a caller on C-Span talking

about this story. He said he heard it on the radio 14 minutes ago.

[kpete]

22. A GOOD Review by TPM

Looking at the "secret agreement" the White House seems to have leaked this afternoon, here's one point that sort of stands out.

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.

The failure to require the company to keep business records on US soil sounds like a pretty open invitation to flout US law as near as I can tell. Forget terrorism. This is the sort of innovative business arrangement I would think a number of Bush-affiliated American companies might want to get in on. Perhaps Halliburton could be domiciled in Houston, pay its taxes in Bermuda, do its business in Iraq and keep its business records in Jordan.

In the rest of the 'secret agreement' you can see other reasons why -- in addition to trade secret regs -- they chose to keep this pitiful deal a secret.

Read this ...

Under the deal, the government asked Dubai Ports to operate American seaports with existing U.S. managers "to the extent possible." It promised to take "all reasonable steps" to assist the Homeland Security Department, and it pledged to continue participating in security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials.

That paragraph is a beaut for the White House. "All reasonable steps" seems like a rather tepid standard of compliance with the Department of Homeland Security, doesn't it? And didn't we figure they'd want to help out regardless? Also, didn't we figure they'd keep helping out trying to prevent loose nukes from coming into the country? Did we just want to be sure?

More pointedly for the White House, the 'secret agreement' seems to have included a series of pledges, albeit rather feeble ones, of cooperation with security and counter-terrorism measures.

See the problem here? They aren't just hoisted on their own petard here; the petard is engaging them in an unnatural act, presumably pre-detonation. The White House's whole premise seems to be that the DPW just isn't involved in the security side of port management. Since that's the case, the whole security argument is bogus.

But if they need to pledge to cooperate and assist with security and counter-terrorism then clearly they are involved in port security.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007733.php

[enough]

23. kick

[Stephanie]

24. Josh is good

thanks

[Just Me]

25. I'd love to know how many other foreign companies have been,...

,...granted immunity by this administration, nation-controlled/owned/operated or not!!!