PDA

View Full Version : Something is WRONG here


Judy G. Russell
February 16th, 2006, 12:02 PM
Okay... something is definitely wrong here. BIG time.

The Bush Administration has just given approval to a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates to purchase another company that runs significant operations at six American ports -- in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

In case anyone has forgotten, the United Arab Emirates is one of only three countries in the world that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government in Afghanistan. And American intelligence has reported that the UAE provided the transfer points for nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya.

Now I've heard of setting the fox to guard the hen house, or Dracula to run the blood bank, but this may just take the cake.

lensue
February 16th, 2006, 12:42 PM
>Okay... something is definitely wrong here. BIG time<

Judy, you may be right but fwiw I read this--don't know how much stock to place in it:

"The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States reviewed the transaction and did not object. The committee, run by the Treasury Department, also includes officials from the departments of Defense, Justice, Commerce, State and Homeland Security.

Although it declined to comment on the committee's decision last week, the Treasury Department said today the consensus of the panel's 12 members was that the sale did not present national security problems. The review included an assessment from U.S. intelligence agencies, the department said. "Clearly no responsibility of government is more important than protecting the national security," the department said in a statement." Regards, Len

Judy G. Russell
February 16th, 2006, 02:05 PM
I also read that the Secretary of the Treasury, in whose department the decision-making authority rests, refused to answer Congressional questions about this. REFUSED TO ANSWER??? Omigosh...

lensue
February 16th, 2006, 08:44 PM
>I also read that the Secretary of the Treasury, in whose department the decision-making authority rests, refused to answer Congressional questions about this<

Judy, I'd like to know more about this--I'll try to find something. Regards, Len

Judy G. Russell
February 16th, 2006, 09:04 PM
The Congress critters who asked wanted to know more too!!!

mshefler
February 16th, 2006, 09:59 PM
Judy,

Quote from the CIA World Factbook on UAE:

"The UAE has an open economy with a high per capita income and a sizable annual trade surplus. Its wealth is based on oil and gas output (about 30% of GDP), and the fortunes of the economy fluctuate with the prices of those commodities. Since the discovery of oil in the UAE more than 30 years ago, the UAE has undergone a profound transformation from an impoverished region of small desert principalities to a modern state with a high standard of living. At present levels of production, oil and gas reserves should last for more than 100 years. The government has increased spending on job creation and infrastructure expansion and is opening up its utilities to greater private sector involvement. Higher oil revenue, strong liquidity, and cheap credit in 2005 led to a surge in asset prices (shares and real estate) and consumer inflation. Any sharp correction to the UAE's equity markets could damage investor and consumer sentiment and affect bank asset quality. In April 2004, the UAE signed a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) with Washington and in November 2004 agreed to undertake negotiations toward a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the US"

Remember, the Bush administrationa mantra: "It's about the oil, stupid."

Lindsey
February 16th, 2006, 10:36 PM
The Bush Administration has just given approval to a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates to purchase another company that runs significant operations at six American ports -- in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

You have GOT to be kidding. They stop 4-year-old children and 80-year-old nuns from boarding planes, and they allow the UAE to purchase a company with interests in port operations in major port cities??????

What kind of MORONS are running this government, anyway?

I'd say something else, but I know I would be chastised for offending delicate sensibilities.

Let me tell you: The Bush administration GREATLY offends every sensibility I have.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
February 16th, 2006, 11:26 PM
Remember, the Bush administrationa mantra: "It's about the oil, stupid."Sigh... I know, I know... but this is so stupid!

Judy G. Russell
February 16th, 2006, 11:27 PM
Nope, not kidding in the least. I'm just appalled. And frankly as someone who lives within bomb distance of the Ports of Elizabeth and Newark I'm somewhat frightened.

Lindsey
February 16th, 2006, 11:56 PM
Nope, not kidding in the least. I'm just appalled. And frankly as someone who lives within bomb distance of the Ports of Elizabeth and Newark I'm somewhat frightened.
What are they thinking? All the drumbeat about keeping the American people safe, and they fail to do the ELEMENTARY things that would help accomplish that. Instead, they entangle themselves in things like wars with no end and extra-legal wiretapping.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
February 17th, 2006, 09:29 AM
This one just simply boggles the mind.

Dan in Saint Louis
February 17th, 2006, 09:46 AM
What kind of MORONS are running this government, anyway?
Follow the money.

Judy G. Russell
February 17th, 2006, 10:26 AM
And the oil. Which may be the same thing...

lensue
February 17th, 2006, 11:15 AM
>And frankly as someone who lives within bomb distance of the Ports of Elizabeth and Newark I'm somewhat frightened<

Judy, that's why I'm in Warren County NJ out of harm's way! Regards, Len [diving for cover!]

Judy G. Russell
February 17th, 2006, 11:56 AM
Warren County is gorgeous... but a bit far of a commute for someone who works in Newark.

lensue
February 17th, 2006, 07:04 PM
>Warren County is gorgeous... but a bit far of a commute for someone who works in Newark.<

Judy, thanks, we like it alot--it's where our garden is! Being retired I don't worry much about Newark! Still all those NYC events we love sometimes have to be missed--it's just too long a drive--still I'm not giving up my opera! Regards, Len [g]

Judy G. Russell
February 17th, 2006, 07:42 PM
Being retired I don't worry much about Newark!Okay, be that way, rub it in...

lensue
February 17th, 2006, 08:04 PM
>Okay, be that way, rub it in<

Judy. LOL! I got the feeling you really enjoyed your job--are you sure you'd like your retirement--what would you do--there's on paper a lot of free time--otoh why do I seem to feel pressed every day with things I wanted to do but didn't get done? Regards, Len [g]

Judy G. Russell
February 17th, 2006, 09:57 PM
are you sure you'd like your retirement--what would you doSurely you jest. I have about 8,462 things I'd like to do, starting with genealogical research that requires lots and lots of time to shake the family tree and see what falls out of the branches!

lensue
February 17th, 2006, 10:36 PM
>Surely you jest. I have about 8,462 things I'd like to do<

Judy, that's great--well retirement is definitely for you then. And you'll be complaining about lack of time before you know it. [g] But don't expect any sympathy from your friends who are still working! Regards, Len [g]

rlohmann
February 18th, 2006, 07:47 AM
Alas (with respect to the Port of Baltimore, at least), poor, gullible you (again).

See http://tinyurl.com/d7jqu, the Letters page from today's Baltimore Sun, and scroll down to the third letter. Former Congresswoman Helen Bentley is one of the leading authorities in the country on marine commerce and port operations. I have no reason to doubt that her comments apply to the other ports, as well.

Judy G. Russell
February 18th, 2006, 09:48 AM
Try again, pal. Once more you misstate (deliberately???) what I said. I did NOT say this company runs the Port of Baltimore. I said it runs significant operations at the various ports. Just how exactly is that statement inconsistent with your Congress critter's statement that "P&O Ports is a stevedoring company that has competitively bid contracts with the Maryland Port Commission to perform certain duties at its public terminals in the port of Baltimore"? Give reasons for your answer.

Judy G. Russell
February 18th, 2006, 09:49 AM
retirement is definitely for you then.I know... I know... and I can't get there fast enough...

Judy G. Russell
February 20th, 2006, 12:02 AM
WASHINGTON, Feb. 19 (AP) — Conditions set by the federal government for approving an Arab company's takeover of operations at six major American ports are not enough to guard against terrorist infiltration, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee said Sunday.

"I'm aware of the conditions, and they relate entirely to how the company carries out its procedures, but it doesn't go to who they hire, or how they hire people," said the chairman, Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York. Mr. King said senior administration officials had shared details of the sale with him.

"They're better than nothing, but to me they don't address the underlying conditions, which is, how are they going to guard against things like infiltration by Al Qaeda or someone else? How are they going to guard against corruption?" Mr. King said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Lindsey
February 20th, 2006, 12:34 AM
Very interesting; I saw Michael Chertoff on "Meet the Press" today (or actually, yesterday at this point), and he spouted the administration line about how they had set conditions for the approval of such things to assure public safety and all that jazz. But the details of the process are classified, so it wasn't clear just what the conditions were, or how deeply they went into things like hiring practices, and given DHS's record to date for lack of foresight and thoroughness, I had exactly the same questions listening to him as I am glad to see Rep. King has raised. And it sounds like I was right to be skeptical of Chertoff's assurances.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
February 20th, 2006, 10:50 AM
I am getting very tired of having the executive branch tell the legislative branch that the answers to their questions are classified. It smacks too much -- way too much -- of "trust me! I'm a lawyer!"

Lindsey
February 20th, 2006, 11:52 PM
I am getting very tired of having the executive branch tell the legislative branch that the answers to their questions are classified. It smacks too much -- way too much -- of "trust me! I'm a lawyer!"
Yeah; I understand the need to keep some thing secret from the people who are trying to do you harm, and I can also see why details of the screening process for foreign companies buying into critical US operations might need to be one of those things. You don't want those trying to infiltrate those operations for nefarious purposes to have a check list of what they need to do to get through the screening.

At the same time, though, democratic government dies in an environment of secrecy. There's a balance that needs to be struck between openness and security, and I've felt for a long time that it was swinging too far in the direction of locking things down and out of public view.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
February 21st, 2006, 07:44 AM
There's a balance that needs to be struck between openness and security, and I've felt for a long time that it was swinging too far in the direction of locking things down and out of public view.Way too far in that direction. See this NYT article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/politics/21reclassify.html).

Judy G. Russell
February 21st, 2006, 08:16 AM
WASHINGTON (AP) - Two Republican governors on Monday questioned a Bush administration decision allowing an Arab-owned company to operate six major U. S. ports, saying they may try to cancel lease arrangements at ports in their states.

New York Gov. George Pataki and Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich voiced doubts about the acquisition of a British company that has been running the U.S. ports by Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates. ...Who's minding the store there in Washington on this one???

Lindsey
February 21st, 2006, 11:07 PM
Way too far in that direction. See this NYT article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/politics/21reclassify.html).
I heard that report on the news today. And in the "Oh, good grief!" department:

... the reclassification program is itself shrouded in secrecy — governed by a still-classified memorandum that prohibits the National Archives even from saying which agencies are involved


So those historians with newly-classified documents sitting in their archives have no good way of knowing that information they received legally several years ago is now illegal to hold. And then when they publish something citing that material... Does it strike you that we are getting close to "secret laws"? That is, laws that aren't part of the public record, but that you can be arrested for violating anyway?

--Lindsey

Lindsey
February 21st, 2006, 11:11 PM
Why do they think they can spend 5 years scaring people about Islamist terrorism and not have people object when they turn a sensitive operation over to someone that, rightly or wrongly, the rest of the country has been conditioned to see as the enemy?

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
February 22nd, 2006, 10:10 AM
Hey, their attitude is that all will be well if we just trust them, doncha know?

Judy G. Russell
February 22nd, 2006, 10:10 AM
Does it strike you that we are getting close to "secret laws"? That is, laws that aren't part of the public record, but that you can be arrested for violating anyway?All too close, I'm afraid. All too close.

ktinkel
February 22nd, 2006, 10:25 AM
Why do they think they can spend 5 years scaring people about Islamist terrorism and not have people object when they turn a sensitive operation over to someone that, rightly or wrongly, the rest of the country has been conditioned to see as the enemy?An obvious question.

Another one is why should any foreign entity — or any business, for that matter — be responsible for a crucial component of the country’s well-being?

lensue
February 22nd, 2006, 11:05 AM
>Hey, their attitude is that all will be well if we just trust them, doncha know?<

Judy, well what about the issue of not discriminating against Muslims--on the Today Show today Tim Russert said that ironically Bush seemed to be taking a very nuanced position on the subject. I myself wonder if maybe the Dems have learned to stay on the right of Bush--especially with mid term elections coming up. [g] I myself don't really know enough about the choice to make a fair decision--seems some more study and proof couldn't hurt but they may have made a proper choice with the United Arab Emirates. Regards, Len

Judy G. Russell
February 22nd, 2006, 01:33 PM
Is it worth the risk to say they MAY have made a proper choice? Frankly, I wouldn't be happy turning control over any port operations over to any foreign government or any company owned/controlled by any foreign government. So to me this isn't a matter of discriminating against Muslims; it's a matter of essential self-protection in not allowing any foreign concern to have control over a matter of critical national security significance.

Right now, the estimate is that only five percent of cargo coming in through the ports is adequately screened. Do you want to put a foreign government in a position where it might impact which five percent is screened? It certainly makes it worse that it's a foreign government that doesn't have the best history in dealing with anti-American terrorism, but it's bad that it's a foreign government at all.

Judy G. Russell
February 22nd, 2006, 01:34 PM
Bingo. It's only marginally more troubling that it's the UAE; the fact is, this type of operation shouldn't be outsourced to a foreign government / foreign concern at all.

Judy G. Russell
February 22nd, 2006, 01:37 PM
"Trust me, even if I didn't know anything about it..."

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday.

... While Bush has adamantly defended the deal, the White House acknowledged that he did not know about it until recently. "He became aware of it over the last several days," [Presidential press secretary Scott] McClellan said. Asked if Bush did not know about it until it was a done deal, McClellan said, "That's correct."

Jeff
February 22nd, 2006, 01:57 PM
Does it strike you that we are getting close to "secret laws"? That is, laws that aren't part of the public record, but that you can be arrested for violating anyway?

--Lindsey

Yeah, reminds me of a pinhead on the old CIS who just loved to spout off about "unwritten" CIS rules, which only he knew about.

- Jeff

Dan in Saint Louis
February 22nd, 2006, 01:59 PM
this type of operation shouldn't be outsourced to a foreign government / foreign concern at all.
Maybe we could make them a deal. They run our ports and Halliburton runs theirs.

Judy G. Russell
February 22nd, 2006, 04:23 PM
Hmmm... I think I may trust Halliburton less than the UAE!

lensue
February 22nd, 2006, 04:34 PM
>Frankly, I wouldn't be happy turning control over any port operations over to any foreign government or any company owned/controlled by any foreign government.<

Judy, well it's all too complicated for me--I suppose further review is in order. Today's Times said this:

"" The White House appeared to have considered the deal routine, especially because so many foreign companies — from Singapore, Denmark and Japan — run major port terminals in the United States and have for years. But Senator Schumer, in an interview, said: "I don't think China or Britain or many of the others have the nexus with terrorism that Dubai has. What kind of controls do they have to prevent infiltration?"

Mr. Bush's aides rejected that line of thought, saying the company in question, Dubai Ports World, which is owned by the government of Dubai, would have no control over security issues at the six terminal operations it is seeking to buy, at New York, Newark, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami and New Orleans. The company would not own the ports but would operate some of the terminals in these cities.

They pointed out that a similar purchase involving the container-handling division of the CSX Corporation, which was bought by Dubai Ports in December 2004, went through with no objections. In that case, none of the terminals Dubai Ports assumed control of were in the United States." Regards, Len

Judy G. Russell
February 22nd, 2006, 09:09 PM
And the fact that the company would operate some terminals in these ports is supposed to make me feel better? As if the company operating some aspects of the ports can't influence how they are operated and how safely? No, no, no, no. We do NOT outsource this sort of thing. In a post-9/11 world, it's crazy to outsource this sort of thing.

lensue
February 22nd, 2006, 09:49 PM
>In a post-9/11 world, it's crazy to outsource this sort of thing<

Judy, I don't know--we'll see what develops--like so many other things! Meanwhile the news reported that if the United Arab Emirates feels it is unfairly treated they may call off a big deal with Boeing for planes--that could mean American jobs. Regards, Len

Lindsey
February 22nd, 2006, 10:41 PM
Hey, their attitude is that all will be well if we just trust them, doncha know?
Along that line, be sure to see Josh Marshall's post (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007724.php) from late last night.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
February 22nd, 2006, 10:44 PM
All too close, I'm afraid. All too close.
And in another episode of "Government by Stealth":

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5640688,00.html

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
February 22nd, 2006, 10:54 PM
If I were in a position to decide, I would refuse to allow any foreign government to control our ports ... by stealth... or by blackmail.

Judy G. Russell
February 22nd, 2006, 10:55 PM
Exactly: trust me, even if I didn't know anything about it.

Lindsey
February 22nd, 2006, 11:07 PM
An obvious question.
Yeah; lots of those these days.


http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW02-22-06.jpg

Another one is why should any foreign entity — or any business, for that matter — be responsible for a crucial component of the country’s well-being?
It would be nice if they would at least follow their own rules (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/02/22/ports/index.html):

Federal law requires that the [Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States] engage in a 45-day investigation -- and leave the final decision to the president -- when the plans of a company controlled by a foreign government could affect U.S. national security. Snow's committee didn't engage in such an investigation, and administration officials are apparently at a loss to explain why not.

Oh, and regarding that committee: There are not even seven degrees of separation:

So here's a question: If the "people responsible in our government" aren't the president, the secretary of defense or the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who are they? The answer, it seems, is the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which is headed by Treasury Secretary John Snow, who used to be the chairman of CSX Rail, which sold its own port operations to Dubai Ports World in 2004.

--Lindsey

lensue
February 23rd, 2006, 08:46 AM
>I would refuse to allow any foreign government to control our ports <

Judy, the key word seems to be control--I think today's Times story sheds light on alot of this:

"In the political collision between the White House and Congress over the $6.8 billion deal that would give a Dubai company management of six American ports, most experts seem to agree on only one major point: The gaping holes in security at American ports have little to do with the nationality of who is running them.

The deal would transfer the leases for ports in New York, Baltimore and Miami, among others, from a British-owned company to one controlled by the government of Dubai, part of the United Arab Emirates. But the security of the ports is still the responsibility of Coast Guard and Customs officials. Foreign management of American ports is nothing new, as the role already played by companies from China, Singapore, Japan, Taiwan and trading partners in Europe attests.

While critics of the deal have raised the specter that it might open the way to the "infiltration" of American ports by terrorists from the Middle East, the Dubai company would in most cases inherit a work force that is mainly American, with hiring subject to the same regulations as under the current British management."

Regards, Len

Judy G. Russell
February 23rd, 2006, 12:20 PM
The fact that port security is bad now does not mean we need to stand by and, IMO, create a condition where it is possible it can get worse... much worse... fast.

Lindsey
February 23rd, 2006, 11:59 PM
The fact that port security is bad now does not mean we need to stand by and, IMO, create a condition where it is possible it can get worse... much worse... fast.
There was an interesting discussion on this topic on the Diane Rehm Show today: http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/06/02/23.php#10181

--Lindsey

earler
February 24th, 2006, 04:33 AM
Those ports are managed by a british company now, not an american one. In any case, security, customes, etc. are all handled by the government not by the british. Similarly, not a few airports today are managed by foreign companies throughout the world.

-er

ndebord
February 24th, 2006, 09:54 AM
>In a post-9/11 world, it's crazy to outsource this sort of thing<

Judy, I don't know--we'll see what develops--like so many other things! Meanwhile the news reported that if the United Arab Emirates feels it is unfairly treated they may call off a big deal with Boeing for planes--that could mean American jobs. Regards, Len

Len,

Good. Let them buy Airbus and non-hydraulic controls. I guess it's too late for them to return the 100 million bucks they "donated" to Operation Katrina just before the Bush Administration decided to approve this little deal.

lensue
February 24th, 2006, 01:34 PM
>Let them buy Airbus and non-hydraulic controls<

Nick, I'd prefer they buy our product--our economy doesn't need more bad news. Regards, Len

Judy G. Russell
February 24th, 2006, 01:43 PM
Folks here in the NY-NJ metro area have been screaming about port security since 9/11.

Judy G. Russell
February 24th, 2006, 01:44 PM
I know they're handled by a British company. I'm not thrilled about that either. But that's not the same as a foreign government owned concern.

Lindsey
February 24th, 2006, 09:15 PM
I know they're handled by a British company. I'm not thrilled about that either. But that's not the same as a foreign government owned concern.
Latest revelation: this deal involves not 6 ports, but 21.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
February 25th, 2006, 10:51 AM
TWENTY-ONE??? Good grief.

Lindsey
February 25th, 2006, 09:59 PM
TWENTY-ONE??? Good grief.
Unfortunately, yes:

UAE terminal takeover extends to 21 ports

By PAMELA HESS
UPI Pentagon Correspondent

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 (UPI) -- A United Arab Emirates government-owned company is poised to take over port terminal operations in 21 American ports, far more than the six widely reported.

The Bush administration has approved the takeover of British-owned Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to DP World, a deal set to go forward March 2 unless Congress intervenes.

P&O is the parent company of P&O Ports North America, which leases terminals for the import and export and loading and unloading and security of cargo in 21 ports, 11 on the East Coast, ranging from Portland, Maine to Miami, Florida, and 10 on the Gulf Coast, from Gulfport, Miss., to Corpus Christi, Texas, according to the company's Web site.

(My emphasis)

http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060223-051657-4981r

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
February 25th, 2006, 11:47 PM
Sigh... what a world...

Lindsey
February 28th, 2006, 11:57 PM
Sigh... what a world...
The sad thing is, even if the Bush administration is correct (and I have no idea whether they are or not), who is going to believe them when they say, "Hey, we've looked into it, and there's not a problem. Don't worry -- we know what we are doing" ? They have so completely blown their credibility on that score, that I'm surprised Bush isn't laughed off the stage every time he puts out that line. It's only too painfully obvious that most of his crew doesn't know what they are doing.

--Lindsye

RayB (France)
March 1st, 2006, 06:12 AM
The sad thing is, even if the Bush administration is correct (and I have no idea whether they are or not), who is going to believe them when they say, "Hey, we've looked into it, and there's not a problem. Don't worry -- we know what we are doing" ? They have so completely blown their credibility on that score, that I'm surprised Bush isn't laughed off the stage every time he puts out that line. It's only too painfully obvious that most of his crew doesn't know what they are doing.

--Lindsye

Why was P & O involved in the first place and not an American company?

earler
March 1st, 2006, 06:43 AM
Why not if they had the best tender offer and do the work as required?

-er

Judy G. Russell
March 1st, 2006, 09:46 AM
Why was P & O involved in the first place and not an American company?Presumably because P & O low-bid the contract.