US Port Deal & Racial Profiling

[Steven Pro]

Can anyone explain to me why it is ok if a British company can run the operations at 6 US ports, but it is a national security emergency if a UAE company buys out that British company? Either way it is a foreign company running the ports. Sounds an awful lot like racial profiling to me.

[schrocat]

I don't like the secretive nature of the decision process...couldn't care less about race.

Doesn't matter anyway, his royal quackness has already said he'll veto anything that remotely stops it.


I'd prefer we run our own port from top to bottom...until now, I wasn't even aware such an arrangement existed at all.

[schrocat]

...but it is a national security emergency if a UAE company buys out that British company

I might add...it isn't just a foreign company.

It's a foreign country.

The company is wholly owned by the UAE.

A senior Homeland Security official, Stewart Baker, said this was the first-ever sale involving U.S. port operations to a state-owned government. "In that sense this is a new layer of controls," he said. Baker added that U.S. intelligence agencies were consulted "very early on to actually look at vulnerabilities and threats."

article here

[Steven Pro]

Why does that matter? I believe Airbus is owned by the British, French, and German governments. Most other countries are not as free market driven as we are in the US.

[schrocat]

Does Airbus have authority over shipping manifests?
Thats comparing apples to airliners.

Is xenophobia in this circumstance racism?
I'm not so sure.

US Ports should be run by the US.

It never should have been out$ourced in the first place.

[Steven Pro]

Airbus was just one example of a company owned by a foreign company, but I see your point in it is not a good comparison of this situation. But, how about this example? How many flights arrive in the US everyday that originate in some other country? In those instances, we are relying on that foreign government to properly screen the passengers and baggage on those flights. If they don't do their job properly, the flight could be commandeered in route and used as a weapon against us.

We are going to have to work closely with other governments in the effort to combat terrorism. The only reason people oppose this deal is the UAE stands for United Arab Emirates. If it was the United Anglo-Saxon Empire, no one would have batted an eye. What kind of message does that send to the world and our allies? To me, it says the US is distrustful of all things Arab.

[Steven Pro]

The more and more that comes out about this deal, the more and more it looks like much ado about nothing to me. From a Yahoo News story this morning:

It started out as a straightforward business deal between two international companies owned by American allies - the Dubai Ports World acquisition of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (P&O). In one short week, it has erupted into a political firestorm that could have far-reaching diplomatic implications for United States relations with the Arab world.

The deal was little noticed outside of the elite international business world until port officials learned that a company owned by the United Arab Emirates would be in control of certain operations at major American ports in New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, and New Orleans.

With the memory of 9/11 still fresh and continuing concerns about a lack of adequate security at US ports, alarms sounded from New York to New Orleans. Mayor Michael Bloomberg talked of canceling New York's contract with the company. Gary LaGrange, president and CEO of the Port of New Orleans, said he didn't "feel real warm and fuzzy about it." On Monday, the governors of New York and Maryland threatened legal action to try to stop the deal. And this week, Congress is stepping in. Senate majority leader Bill Frist said "the decision to finalize this deal should be put on hold until the administration conducts a more extensive review of this matter."

Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record) (D) and Rep. Peter King (news, bio, voting record) (R), both of New York, also introduced emergency legislation Tuesday to "suspend the handover" of certain port operations. "Approving this contract in the dark of night and ignoring all of the many questions asked about this takeover is an affront to anybody who cares about our nation's security," Senator Schumer said in a statement Tuesday.

The Bush administration, which approved the sale, says it thoroughly reviewed all the national security implications. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff made the rounds of TV talk shows Sunday morning, trying to assure skeptics that the administration had put proper security precautions into place. But he said that information was classified.

Despite the administration's efforts, the controversy continues.

"What we're seeing is a very unfortunate knee-jerk reaction in terms of the Muslim world," says Lester Lave, an economist at Carnegie Mellon University's Tepper School of Business in Pittsburgh, noting the United Arab Emirates is a key US ally in the Muslim world. "If you treat your strong allies this way - this is like a poke in the eye - then what in the world should people who are not our strong allies expect from us?"

In past two years, the US has been negotiating a free-trade agreement with the UAE. Professor Lave agrees that security is important, but he believes it can be negotiated in the contract. Some homeland- security experts say the interagency review, which was led by the Bush administration's Treasury Department, may have provided even greater security guarantees than most international business deals do.

"In a weird way, the interagency review allows the US to hold international companies to a higher level of standards and accountability," says Frank Cilluffo, director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University. "There are some legitimate security concerns, but it's going to come down to enforcement, and arguably at a higher standard than we have had in the past."

Companies like P&O don't provide security at the ports. The US Coast Guard and Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement do. For instance, in New Orleans, P&O is one of eight terminal operators responsible for marketing the port, signing agreements with shipping lines, hiring labor, loading ships, and moving cargo.

But P&O has no responsibility for security. "We have our own police force, harbor patrol, customs officers, and Coast Guard," says Chris Bonura, spokesman for the Port of New Orleans. "That won't change no matter who is operating the terminal."

P&O is not commenting on the political uproar over the deal. But a source within the company worries that the media and politicians are misrepresenting the arrangements. Other who work within the port communities agree. They note that P&O will not be "managing" the ports, as many news organizations have reported. Instead, the company is one of many that leases terminals at the port.

"I've never quite seen a story so distorted so quickly," says Esther de Ipolyi, a public-relations executive who works with the port of Houston. "It's like I go to an apartment building that has 50 apartments, and I rent an apartment. This does not mean I took over the management of the whole building."

Security is a top priority at the ports, but there's concern the Bush administration has not provided enough funds to properly pay for it. Earlier this month, the president of the American Association of Port Authorities complained that the $708 million allotted for maritime security over the past four years amounted to only one-fifth of what the port authorities had identified as needed to properly secure the ports.

[Ninong]

I don't think it's much ado about nothing, unless you consider the laws of the United States nothing. Of course, that's exactly the position of the Bush administration. Bush has adopted Nixon's slogan: "If the President does it, then it's not illegal."

In this case they have clearly violated the law by awarding this contract without the mandatory 45-day CFIUS investigation to address national security concerns. Just another example of the administration's total disregard for the law.

I have no opinion as to whether this is a national security threat or not but I do think it should be investigated, as required by law!

[Steven Pro]

I don't think it's much ado about nothing, unless you consider the laws of the United States nothing. Of course, that's exactly the position of the Bush administration. Bush has adopted Nixon's slogan: "If the President does it, then it's not illegal."

In this case they have clearly violated the law by awarding this contract without the mandatory 45-day CFIUS investigation to address national security concerns. Just another example of the administration's total disregard for the law.

I have no opinion as to whether this is a national security threat or not but I do think it should be investigated, as required by law!

This is the first I have heard about that angle and I would prefer to see the same thing covered by some major media source like the AP, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, etc. but still I have yet to see any politician mention this. The only objection being this is an Arab country and can't be trusted. Up until now, it is strictly an example of election year politics at its finest. A bunch of politicians looking to appear tough on national security issues who might inadvertently alienate a key ally and in affect truly jeopardize national security.

[Ninong]

Either way it is a foreign company running the ports. Sounds an awful lot like racial profiling to me.

The people who have raised questions about this deal point to the fact that two of the 9/11 highjackers were from the UAE. That doesn't seem like a legitimate complaint to me because they could easily have been from any country. In fact, most of them were from one of our other allies, Saudi Arabia.

Some people have expressed concern that the UAE has been implicated in financing the terrorists. So has Saudi Arabia.

The risk, if there is one, is that the government of the UAE could be infiltrated by a jihadist sympathizer who might use his position to obtain information useful to terrorists. Obviously that's a risk for the British government, too, and even for our own government. Most people assume, probably correctly, that the risk is greater for an Arab government.

A thorough investigation of this risk is required by law. Probably a good idea.

[Steven Pro]

A thorough investigation of this risk is required by law. Probably a good idea.

I would agree with that. But, if the only "risk" is that this is an Arab company/country, I can't image that would stand up to legal scrutiny.

[Ninong]

I would agree with that. But, if the only "risk" is that this is an Arab company/country, I can't image that would stand up to legal scrutiny.

This is another issue of where do you draw the line between prejudice and common sense.

Here are a few examples:

A black man driving a late model BMW or Mercedes late at night on the interstate in south Florida is statistically more likely to be transporting drugs than a white woman driving the same vehicle. The Florida cops used that argument to defend their practice of routinely stopping late model expensive cars driven by black men late at night on south Florida highways. They were ruled out of line. They were no doubt correct in their appreciation of the "risk" but the violation of civil rights outweighed other considerations, as it should.

Airport security is trying to catch any potential bad guys boarding planes. This is a good idea. There are not very many jihadists who are blue-eyed blondes from Denmark. Chances are better that they will be Middle-Eastern looking. However, profiling that relies on giving extra attention to Middle-Eastern looking people has proven offensive to, well, Middle-Eastern looking people who happen to be Americans. That figures. So what the airlines now do is simply give extra attention to any single males in a certain age group, especially carrying backpacks. And especially if they're in groups for two or three or four. I guess I've flown back and forth between Louisiana and California at least a dozen times since 9/11 (in fact, I was flying on 9/11 but my flight was cancelled!) and I have noticed that guys in their 20's in groups of two or three, with or without packpacks, are virtually guaranteed to be singled out for extra attention by security.

The people who have voiced opposition to handing over port operations to a company controlled by the UAE are using the argument that the UAE is more likely to have jihadists in their midst than a Western country. If it were possible to take an accurate survey, you would probably find more jihadists in any Arab country than you would in any Western country (excluding certain arrondissements in Paris). Therefore, common sense might require a certain elevated level of attention to the security risks involved in awarding a port operations contract to a company controlled by an Arab country.

[Ninong]

“I will fight harder than ever for this legislation, and if it is vetoed I will fight as hard as I can to override it,” said Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y., chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. King and Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York said they will introduce emergency legislation to suspend the ports deal.

[Ninong]

Before his boss makes an idiot of himself by taking a very strong position in opposition to even looking at this deal, Rove needs to count the votes in the Senate. Frist's bill will pass with a veto-proof majority as long as it calls for nothing more than a cooling off period to take a closer look at this deal. Bush has already said publicly that he will veto any such bill. Bad move! He'll lose on his very first veto ever.

Down here in the New Orleans area, none of the local politicians from either political party have spoken out in support of the president's position.


"Right now, we're not going to go as far as to say that the sale should be blocked," said Adam Sharp, spokesman for Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La. "But it certainly does merit a much stronger investigation than what's been given."

At issue is the $6.8 billion acquisition of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. by Dubai's Dubai Ports World. The White House has already approved the deal, and President Bush defended his endorsement Tuesday even as criticism of the acquisition and its national security implications mounted.

Critics have pointed out that two of the hijackers involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were from the United Arab Emirates and that Dubai served as a financial base for the hijackers. Lawmakers also have noted that the UAE was a transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist. It's also one of three countries that continue to recognize the Taliban as Afghanistan's official government.

Dubai is one of the seven emirates that make up the United Arab Emirates on the Arabian Peninsula.

Congress has not reviewed the sale, which affects the six American ports where P&O operates: New Orleans, Baltimore, Miami, New York, Philadelphia and Newark, N.J.

And Rep. Bobby Jindal, R-Kenner, a member of the House Homeland Security Committee, said he first heard of the deal through media reports.

"Nobody in the administration consulted us," Jindal said. "We would like to know how (the administration) made their decision. The administration needs to show the nation's people what gave them the confidence to approve this. They should slow down, stop this process and share with the American people why this makes sense."

Jindal said he wants to give the administration an opportunity to present its case, but he admits he already is "very skeptical."

P&O functions locally as P&O Louisiana and operates half of the Port of New Orleans' Napoleon Avenue Container Terminal and the Nashville Avenue Terminal, where it handles steel and other break-bulk products. The port, a state agency, has seven terminal operators at facilities that stretch along the Mississippi River and Industrial Canal. P&O is one of those operators. It leases property from the port and works to load and unload ships, move cargo and attract more ships to the port.

"This is not an instance where a foreign company is buying the Port of New Orleans, but it's an instance where we have a tenant that is already owned by a foreign company being bought by another foreign company," Port of New Orleans spokesman Chris Bonura said.

Still, lawmakers from the other states where P&O operates are calling on the Bush administration to re-evaluate the sale and are asking that a "more extensive review" be conducted.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Tuesday that the Bush administration should delay the sale until a congressional investigation can be completed.
"If the administration cannot delay this process, I plan on introducing legislation to ensure that the deal is placed on hold until this decision gets a more thorough review," Frist said.

Bush, however, said Tuesday that he would veto any bill proposed to hold up the sale.

"It's been looked at by those people who have been charged with the security of our country," Bush said of the deal during a meeting aboard Air Force One. "And I believe the deal should go forward."

Bush also challenged the legitimacy of the criticism.

"I really don't understand why it's OK for a British company to operate our ports, but not a company from the Middle East, when our experts are convinced that port security is not an issue," Bush said. "And I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company."

Jindal said the issue is not that Dubai Ports is a foreign company, but that it's from a country with a sketchy relationship with the United States.

"The concern is this particular country's past track record," Jindal said. "It's a country that hasn't been completely forthright in the war on terrorism. It's important that we don't rush to approve this."

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., said he would support Frist's legislation.

"I have enormous concerns and a lot of questions that need to be answered about this," Vitter said. "If it takes legislation to make that happen, I would absolutely support it."

[The Grim Reefer]

This is the first I have heard about that angle and I would prefer to see the same thing covered by some major media source like the AP, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, etc. but still I have yet to see any politician mention this. The only objection being this is an Arab country and can't be trusted. Up until now, it is strictly an example of election year politics at its finest. A bunch of politicians looking to appear tough on national security issues who might inadvertently alienate a key ally and in affect truly jeopardize national security.

The reason you haven't heard about this in the "credible" media is that it is false.

Also from the CFIUS website:

"To assist in making this determination, Exon-Florio provides for the President or his designee to receive written notice of an acquisition, merger or takeover of a U.S. corporation by a foreign entity. Once CFIUS has received a complete notification, it begins a thorough review of the notified transaction. In some cases, it is necessary to undertake an extended review or "investigation." An investigation, if necessary, must begin no later than 30 days after receipt of a notice. Any investigation is required to end within 45 days.

Information provided by companies contemplating a transaction subject to Exon-Florio is held confidential and is not made public, except in the case of an administrative or judicial action or proceeding. Nothing in section 721 shall be construed to prevent disclosure to either House of Congress or to any duly authorized committee or subcommittee of the Congress.
Factors To Be Considered. The Exon-Florio provision lists the following factors that the President or his designee may consider in determining the effects of a foreign acquisition on national security. These factors are:

(1) domestic production needed for projected national defense requirements;
(2) the capability and capacity of domestic industries to meet national defense requirements, including the availability of human resources, products, technology, materials, and other supplies and services;
(3) the control of domestic industries and commercial activity by foreign citizens as it affects the capability and capacity of the U.S. to meet the requirements of national security;
(4) the potential effects of the transaction on the sales of military goods, equipment, or technology to a country that supports terrorism or proliferates missile technology or chemical and biological weapons; and
(5) the potential effects of the transaction on U.S. technological leadership in areas affecting U.S. national security."
--------------------------------------------------------------

The CFIUS did a "review" which is a term that is used interchanged with "investigation" in the law. The UAE company approached the CFIUS back in November about the buyout so they had extra time to look into this from the beginning.

That being said I can see both sides of this. We want to make friends with the Muslim street and you don't do that by discriminating against them. By the same token is it smart to allow those countries to have control of the ports. Well, didn't the 9-11 terrorists all board the jets from US opperated airports? I think the key is to seperate security from operations. I personally think this should be delayed until we know port security is working.

The thing that slays me is that people actually buy into this concern for security crap these politicians are trying to sell. If that were the case these clowns would be doing their talking at the white house instead of in the news media. You got the Democrats trying to get to the right of Bush on national security and the Republicans trying to out right the Democrats. This is a joke. It would be nice to have elected officials that are more worried about our national interests than scoring political points.

[Ninong]

What's false? And do you consider the New York Times to be part of the "credible" media? Are you saying that the report in today's New York Times is incorrect?

The administration admits that they didn't follow the law according to the New York Times:

The administration's review of the deal was conducted by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a body that was created in 1975 to review foreign investments in the country that could affect national security. Under that review, officials from the Defense, State, Commerce and Transportation Departments, along with the National Security Council and other agencies, were charged with raising questions and passing judgment. They found no problems to warrant the next stage of review, a 45-day investigation with results reported to the president for a final decision.

However, a 1993 amendment to the law stipulates that such an investigation is mandatory when the acquiring company is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government. Administration officials said they conducted additional inquires because of the ties to the United Arab Emirates, but they could not say why a 45-day investigation did not occur.

[schrocat]

ouch.

that's gonna leave a mark...

[Ninong]

ouch.

that's gonna leave a mark...

Let's review:

He claims no one told him about the Plame leak thing. Maybe. But even if they didn't ask his permission, he surely learned about it early on after it hit the press. Just goes to show you who's running things. Big Time!

They didn't want to tell him about the vice president shooting a guy in the face down in Texas. Finally someone other than the vice president called someone in the White House to tell them that someone had shot someone else in the vice president's hunting party. They didn't think it was important to say that it was the vice president who had pulled the trigger. It wasn't until Karl Rove called Katharine Armstrong to ask her what was going on that the White House, and the President, learned that Cheney was the trigger man. Cheney did not talk to Bush about this incident for more than 36 hours because Cheney knows who's in charge.

According to the White House, Bush didn't know anything about this ports deal until it hit the press:

WASHINGTON - 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.


Don't miss the Snow angle: "The administration signed off on the deal after it was approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, an interagency panel chaired by Treasury Secretary John Snow," says the Philadelphia Inquirer .

"Snow was chairman of CSX, a rail firm that, according to the New York Daily News, sold its own port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, a year after Snow left to head Treasury."

P.S. -- Maybe Secretary Snow will say that CFIUS did complete the mandatory 45-day investigation and that he reported the results to Deputy Leader Dick for a final decision? :eek3: Bush says nobody told him anything about it but that's not unusual in this White House.

[The Grim Reefer]

What's false? And do you consider the New York Times to be part of the "credible" media? Are you saying that the report in today's New York Times is incorrect?

The administration admits that they didn't follow the law according to the New York Times:

The administration's review of the deal was conducted by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a body that was created in 1975 to review foreign investments in the country that could affect national security. Under that review, officials from the Defense, State, Commerce and Transportation Departments, along with the National Security Council and other agencies, were charged with raising questions and passing judgment. They found no problems to warrant the next stage of review, a 45-day investigation with results reported to the president for a final decision.

However, a 1993 amendment to the law stipulates that such an investigation is mandatory when the acquiring company is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government. Administration officials said they conducted additional inquires because of the ties to the United Arab Emirates, but they could not say why a 45-day investigation did not occur.

If they had violated the law Shumer and the others wouldn't be talking about the need to create a new law to stop the deal, they would be in court. Pretty simple.

[Steven Pro]

For perspective, from that same NYT article:

The opposition to the deal brought expressions of befuddlement from shipping industry and port experts. The shipping business, they said, went global more than a decade ago, and foreign-based firms already control more than 30 percent of the port terminals in the United States. They include APL Limited, which is controlled by the government of Singapore and operates terminals in Los Angeles; Oakland, Calif.; Dutch Harbor, Alaska; and Seattle.

Globally, 24 of the top 25 ship terminal operators are foreign-based, meaning most of the containers sent to the United States leave terminals around the world that are operated by foreign governments or foreign-based companies.

"This kind of reaction is totally illogical," said Philip Damas, research director at Drewry Shipping Consultants of London. "The location of the headquarters of a company in the age of globalism is irrelevant."