Saudi Arabian Company to Operate Our Ports??

Discussion in 'Politics' started by StraightAndNarrow, Feb 21, 2006.

  1. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3
    What is going on here? Obviously there is some kind of payback going on here. Otherwise this should NEVER happen. The Saudi's will not only run the most impotant ports in the U.S. they will also provide security for them!!!! Can you say suitcase nuclear weapons?
    *************************************************

    Congressmen worry about ports deal with Dubai firm
    By Claudia Parsons

    U.S. lawmakers will seek quick action in Congress to block a deal under which a state-owned Dubai company would manage major U.S. seaports, they said on Tuesday.


    Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record) and Republican Congressman Peter King, who is chairman of the House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee, would push the legislation as soon as Congress resumes on Monday, Schumer's office said in a statement.

    King said on Sunday the Bush administration had failed to put adequate security conditions on the deal, which has raised concerns about the safety of strategic facilities considered vulnerable since the September 11 attacks.

    King said that before the administration approved the sale of British firm P&O, which manages six U.S., ports, to Dubai Ports World of the United Arab Emirates, it failed to determine whether the company could be trusted.

    The UAE company would control management of ports in New York and New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New Orleans and Miami.
    "In light of these critical functions being transferred from a private company based in Britain to a United Arab Emirates government-owned company based in Dubai ... Sen. Schumer and Congressman Peter King will announce their emergency legislation to suspend the Dubai port deal," the statement said.

    FULL INVESTIGATION

    It said the legislation would require a full investigation by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States and Congress would have authority to stop the sale.

    Congressman Mark Foley, a Florida Republican, and Rep. Vito Fossella (news, bio, voting record), a New York Republican, were to hold a news conference at the Port of Miami on Tuesday with a spokesman for the shipping firm suing to stop the ports' operations from being sold to Dubai Ports.
    New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg also backed calls by Schumer, a Democrat, and other legislators for further review of the contract, a spokesman said. "Their concerns need to be met and addressed," the spokesman said.

    Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has defended the deal, saying the administration approved it after a classified review and included provisions to protect national security.
    New York's other U.S. senator, Democrat Hillary Clinton, said last week she planned legislation to ban companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from acquiring U.S. port operations, and Republican Gov. George Pataki has also criticized the deal.

    U.S. seaports handle 2 billion tons of freight each year. Only about 5 percent of containers are examined on arrival and since September 11, 2001, security experts in New York have been particularly concerned about ports' vulnerability to attack.

    U.S. officials have praised the United Arab Emirates 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.


    Frist: Stop handover of U.S. ports to Arab firm
    Senate’s top Republican adds voice to criticism of Bush administration move

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11474440/
     
  2. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, not Saudi. This is a United Arab Emirates-based company.

    Personally, I have no problem with it. U.S. security will still be handled by Customs and the Department of Homeland Security.

    Also, the UAE has been an ally of ours in the war with al Qaeda. I think it would be bad policy to stick our thumb in the eye of a sorely needed ally in the Arab world.
     
  3. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3
    Correct. My mistake. But this proposed deal really bothers me. Here's some background I found on a bloq.

    ***********************************************

    George Bush wants to let Dubai World Ports - a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates - take control of 6 of the largest ports in the U.S.: New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

    Shipping ports are already the most vulnerable part of our Homeland Security, since 95% of imported goods come by ship. Yet only 5% of cargo containers - which could easily hide WMD's - are physically inspected.

    And the United Arab Emirates has some of the most dangerous ties to terrorism, according to seven U.S. Senators:

    - The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

    - The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.

    - According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.

    - Two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE (Fayez Banihammad and Marwan al-Shehhi)

    - After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.

    The $6.8 billion deal was approved by Alberto Gonzales, Condi Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, John Snow, and Michael Chertoff.

    Rice said there had been a "thorough review" of the sale. "It's the considered opinion of the U.S. government that this can go forward," she said.
     
  4. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with the Bush administration, regardless of what some blog says. As far as two of the hijackers on 9/11/2001 being UAE citizens, there was at least one American with the Taliban. Should we refuse to allow business deals with U.S. companies because of that?
     
  5. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3
    This isn't just doing business. It's handing over operational control (including security) to a country that has a history of having ties to terrorists. This company is owned by the government of the UAR if I understand this correctly.

    Personally, I believe that our ports are our most dangerous area due to the possibility of shipping in suitcase nuclear or bio-chemical weapons. I remember reading a book once in which exactly this was done. A suitcase nuke was shipped into NYC. If we're going to have homeland security at all (and I don't think we have that much right now) how can we do such a stupid thing?
     
  6. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, security is not being turned over.

    I was listening to some news about this this morning and in one of the ports DP World is going to be managing only one terminal out of six in the port. This business deal is a whole lot less far reaching than many of the critics are making it out to be.
     
  7. elijah_lives

    elijah_lives
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    472
    Likes Received:
    0
    Whether or not this deal poses a threat to security, it sure looks bad. No transparency to the review process, and now Bush has backed himself into a corner. Stick to his guns, and he faces a whole lot of opposition; cave in, and he offends an ally. He actually threatens a veto on legislation intervening in this, yet fails to veto huge spending bills???

    The only way out for Bush is a federal judge stepping in where he or she doesn't belong, and stopping this deal.
     
  8. Debby in Philly

    Debby in Philly
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    2,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    We're not thrilled with the idea here in Philadelphia. Pretty scary thought. Maybe in Arkansas it just doesn't feel so close to home.

    Anyway, is there no American company who can do the job?
     
  9. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe Halliburton? :D
     
  10. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    W aides' biz ties to Arab firm

    BY MICHAEL McAULIFF
    DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

    Breaking news update: Bush shrugs off objections to port deal

    WASHINGTON - The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House.

    One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose agency heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark's container port.

    Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet.

    The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.

    The ties raised more concerns about the decision to give port control to a company owned by a nation linked to the 9/11 hijackers.

    SOURCE

    Why am I not surprised?
     
  11. go2church

    go2church
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    Why is ok for a British company to own the port operations, but not a UAE company? What if it was an Israeli company, they are from the Middle East, would that be ok? If so why?
     
  12. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    DP World is a world class company. One would expect it to have interaction with world class business people.
     
  13. RandR

    RandR
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2003
    Messages:
    348
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because we blindly support Zionism?
     
  14. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Whatever Ken.
     
  15. Rocko9

    Rocko9
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,621
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tis gives new meaning to America being a FREE country, FREE to the highest bidder that is.
     
  16. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's a global marketplace. U.S. companies buy companies in other countries, too. It works both ways.
     
  17. Rocko9

    Rocko9
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,621
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oooooh Ken! :mad: I know you are right but I do hope that our government will make an exception to the rule on this one.
     
  18. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm trying to figure out what the problem is. Several US posts are managed by companies in Singapore and China. Where is the furor over security concerns in these cases? I see no logical reason to forbid a UAE company to do the same.
     
  19. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I could be incorrect but I recall in hearing this issue discussed that no U.S.-based company manages any of our ports.
     
  20. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128

Share This Page

Loading...