Info on bush's insane port operations deal.

[Umfriend]

A few observations:
1. If and when a country finds that foreign (or even domestic) owners of security sensitive assets to use that ownership against you (which in this case might for instance apply to potential intelligence on procedures and customs at the ports to enable smugling of whatever), there may be an easy solution: nationalise the asset. Don't give the money back.
2. Although MEMRI accepts (or at least does not refute) that the UAE finds the ZCCF troublesome and is cracking down on them somewhat, it seems to me that as long as the UAE is eager enough to denounce Danish Cartoons (tm) ( http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayA...on=theuae&col= ), one should wonder whether they should not boycotted for not speaking out against the anti-US, Israel, semitism and democratic polemics originating from their own soil.
3. Although I do not particularly like to agree with KVH, I do believe he makes a valid point when he doubts the sincerity of the UAE as a US allie.
4. This point is even stronger when you consider that the UAE is not a democracy. Undemocratic countries are not exactly the most trustworthy allies, especially in cases where they are overrun.

[KvHagedorn]

Free market capitalism, like every other "ism" is a problem when it is worshipped as being somehow always a good thing. There are no absolutes in any economic-political system.

[schmosef]

Jimmy Carter supports this deal.

That alone should sent alarm bells for any rational, right-thinking American.

[cjolley]

All of the arguments that Bush and Doc offer make perfect sense.
If this was a short term deal.
But it's not.

Only an idiot would think that it won't be easier for AQ to infiltrate a UAE co than a UK one.
If they haven't already.
Once that happens, AQ will know every detail of our port security (such as it is) AND have access to the paper and computer records that our security people use to track what's coming and going.
Nuclear material for both Iran and North Korea have been tracked through the UAE, and so was funding for the 9-11 attack.

It's just not worth taking the chance.
This is MUCH more likely to help AQ to get the bomb into our country than Sadam ever could have.
And Bush was willing to go to WAR to stop that.

Why is this different?

[Umfriend]

Perhaps Halliburton has a stake in DPW.

[Dr Mordrid]

AQ infiltration could happen no matter who owns the company because of anti-discrimiatory hiring laws in most every western nation. Unless you're ready to repeal all of those. Besides that; AQ could just as easily infiltrate a Singapore company, one of which owns operations at other US and many other international ports.

Haliburton gets a lot of business because it's one of only a few companies of its kind in the US and happens to be by concensus one of the better ones. Even many Democrats in Congress are stockholders, not to mention a ton of retirement funds. Why? Because it makes them money, like any good company.

Dr. Mordrid

[cjolley]

AQ infiltration could happen no matter who owns the company

Well we don't have to actively make it easier for them do we?

...AQ could just as easily infiltrate a Singapore company, one of which owns operations at other US and many other international ports.

That's a joke, right?
You are going all pre-9/11 on us just to defend Bush?


PS To coin a new use of the phrase: It's the manifests stupid.

[cjolley]

Another way of looking at it.

For a man who once divided the countries of the world based on their handling of terrorism -- "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" -- George W. Bush sure seems to have a hard time understanding that others might draw a distinction between, say, America's closest ally in the war on terrorism and a country that served as a conduit for money and manpower needed to pull off the attacks of 9/11.

Yes, there's probably some racism and xenophobia behind the uproar over the Bush administration's plan to turn over control of six U.S. ports to a company controlled by the government of Dubai. But the president's defense -- the claim that Great Britain and the United Arab Emirates are somehow interchangeable -- isn't going to bring anyone around on the issue. Bush said Tuesday that he wanted his critics to explain why "all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company." He returned to the theme this morning, saying that he finds it "interesting" that "it's OK for a British company to manage some ports, but not OK for a company from a country that is also a valuable ally in the war on terror."

There's no arguing that both Great Britain and the UAE have been helpful to the U.S. military. But none of the 9/11 hijackers were British nationals; most of the money for 9/11 didn't move through the British banking system; Great Britain didn't serve as a critical transfer point for shipments from A.Q. Khan; and we're not aware of any recent State Department reports saying that Great Britain denies rights to its citizenry or restricts freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

The United Arab Emirates aren't part of any "axis of evil," but you can understand why Americans are wary anyway: Members of the president's party are still trying to sell the war in Iraq by talking up links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida that never existed in the first place. The links between the UAE and the attacks of 9/11, though passive, were real. Yet we went to war against Iraq, and we're handing over our ports to the UAE? Yeah, that's an oversimplified way of looking at things. But when a president spends four years reducing the world to black and white, he loses the right to complain when his people can't see all the gray spots in between.

[Technoid]

Well we don't have to actively make it easier for them do we?




That's a joke, right?
You are going all pre-9/11 on us just to defend Bush?


PS To coin a new use of the phrase: It's the manifests stupid.

Actually I'd say that Doc will say just about anything to defend his greatest idol

[Dr Mordrid]

Not really, and if you check who's for/against the deal it crosses party and philosophical lines more than any issue I've seen in ages. Anything that puts Jimmy Carter on the same side as George Bush just has to be a major crossover issue. Even security experts cannot agree on this one, dispite their party leanings.

Bottom line: it's a non-partisan issue and treating it otherwise is disingenuous.

My full take:

Firstly; the UAE company isn't taking over whole ports, but only about 20% of the terminals in the given ports in question. These terminal operations amount to running the cranes that load and unload the ships. The local port arthorities will remain intact as will the US control of security via local, US Customs, US Coast Guard and the US Dept. of Homeland Security.

Also note that under an agreement with the UAE made after 9/11 US Customs and Homeland Security people screen shipments from their ports bound for the US before they're even loaded on the ships, providing a redundent layer of protection.

These screenings done in the UAE include X-Raying the containers with equipment that can not only discriminate shapes but what the contents are made of. This check is done while the container is still on the truck using a large drive-through scanner that takes seconds to image the whole container and analyze the results.

They also use neutron and other radiation detection equipment to screen for undeclared nuclear materials. These detectors are hand held and are so accurate they can identify not only the element in question but what isotope of that element. This all lets them discriminate between smoke detectors and potential bomb components as well as detect large lead containers attempting to spoof the radiation detectors.

All this before US bound shipments from the UAE are even loaded on the ships.

Another thing is that the management team here won't change; Both the CEO and his 2nd's in command are US citizens and much of the rest of the management will be the same Brits up and down the line that have operated these ports under the UK company. The guys loading and unloading will be the same US stevedores and longshoremen as have been there for years and nothing will change as regards vetting hew hires.

One thing that gets me is this "factoid" being passed around to the effect that we only "check 5% of the containers" coming into the US. That's a 1/10th truth at best. The fact is that a far higher percentage of containers are examined in some manner; be it by X-Ray, radiation detection, providence & seal checking etc. That 5% is just what cannot be cleared by other means, and therefore they get opened for a physical check.

As for the manifests: those aren't just handled by the shipping companies. Those doing the checks in the UAE (all US people) also transmit their own detailed information to the destination port security teams, so discrepancies would be obvious.

Also: if this worries you, now about knowing that about 80% of our port terminals are operated by foreign companies including China? Didn't hear much yelling and screaming when they bought out terminals, dispite their activities in the arms trade.

Dr. Mordrid

[cjolley]

These screenings done in the UAE ...

Containers from the UAE?
What would that be? like 1/10th of 1% of the containers that come into the US?

And who cares who the top management is or who the longshoremen are?
It's the paper pushers and computer programmers that we need to worry about.

Do the contracts include any military terminals, or terminals that do military shipping?

As for China, I don't recall anyone from China or expressing Chinese sympathies being at the controles of any of the 9-11 planes.

There is a lot of misinformation floating about now about the responsibilities of the terminal managers.
I think we will know the truth by the time it's sorted out.

[Dr Mordrid]

FYI the UAE's shipping corporation is one of the largest in the world as is their main port in Dubai, so yes what they ship amounts to a whole lot of cargo. They not only ship from the UAE but also operate terminals in S. Korea and most other major nations.

The US Navy's Pacific Fleet that's attached to CENTCOM has operated mainly out of the main UAE port in Dubai for the last 20 years, and has been very satisfied with their security and capablities. In fact it's the US Navy's busiest port of call outside the continental United States. Ask the sailors and they'll tell you Dubai is one of their favorite stops. I know my eldest son loved it and has said he'd vacation there in a heartbeat. Great beaches, friendly locals etc. etc. Europeans also vacation there a lot.

The UAE's motivation in getting into shipping but into tourism is that their oil reserves are rather small compared to other nations in the region. In fact they'll likely only last another 10 years and the UAE's leadership has been working hard at providing for what comes after. On the tourism side they're building what will be the largest artificial islands in the world to make room for tourist hotels and additonal beach front. They'll be in the shape of a giant palm trees;

http://realestate.theemiratesnetwork.com/developments/dubai/palm_islands.php

They're also planning a commercial passenger spaceport akin to what Virgin is building here in New Mexico.

Bottom line: with what these people are planning on the commercial front it would be stupid as hell for them to let anything happen to jeopardize that. As such their motivation to provide high security, even higher than is required fo them, will be quite high.

As for where which terrorists come from: Tim McVeigh, Terry Nichols, The UniBomber etc. etc. etc. all the way back to the KKK came from the US, so does that exclude us from operating our own ports? Not to mention how many suicide bombers come from Jordan, but I don't see anyone clamoring for them to be put on some watch list nor do I see their ally satus being questioned. In fact they've taken serious hits, as has the UAE (Chinese Silkworm cruise missiles launched by Saddam).

My "other nations" point was that a lot of people are acting like arses and saying that they don't want "no damned Arabs" operating shipping terminals here, even if they don't state it quite that way. Problem is that this kind of targeted discrimination is illegal and would likely be overturned in litigation. To ban the UAE one would really have to ban all foreign operation of US terminals, which is just flat impractical given that such a large percentage of our terminals are foreign operated and that such lease losses would likely have to be compensated for by the govt.

I also get a real kick out of Congressmen on both sides of the asile bitching about how this deal was done when it was Congress who not only passed the enabling legislation for how agencies were to handle such things but wrote the rules for how the vetting would be done back in 1992/1993 and was signed into law by Clinton shortly after.

Nothing like passing the buck

Dr. Mordrid

[SpiralDragon]

I am sory but i had to bring this back up....
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
LMAO

sory... eyes tearing from laughter........ but this thread is the funiest one i have read so far.....
and not because of what is happening... with the deal and all... but because of your reactions....

LOL

[cjolley]

... but because of your reactions....

LOL

Who, what, when, where?

[Umfriend]

You know, I was completely in the dark but your posting SD made it all clear to me. As ever.