UAE Taking Over American Ports !

Originally posted by esdad71
If i was a terrorist, I would get into Canada via South America. Then I would make it to British Columbia, and I would observe how they take kayaks and small boats across the water to smuggle BC bud (marijuana). I would follow one and either pay him to take me or kill him and use his transportation, or I would hook up with a drug cartel in Mexico with connections I made in Chechnya, and take a drug truck or tunnel across the border. That is how they are getting in. If the ACLU ever backed off, maybe a little more big brother on the borders would improve our chances.

You see, I feel safe enough with my countries security that this deal is not a big security concern. Do you really think that gov't agencies give the heads up when there is a search, or a raid or if they are bieng monitored? That for some reason if you owned this company you would be privy to secret information? Read the internet and you can learn all you want about port security, and how to attmept to circumvent it.

You have some original ideas......almost like you have done this before !

You have your opinion and I have mine, we have haggled this enough for one day. We are not going to see eye to eye on this, I guess we will just have to see what happens with this one.

Perhaps I have read things completely wrong, but I think that a little perspective may be in order here.

There seem to be several misconceptions and preconceptions that the press is not going very far out of its way to clear up. Here is my understanding of some of the issues that have so many people upset (and I was one of them initially).

First, the UAE is not taking over our ports. They will not own our ports. They will not handle security for our ports. They will manage the operations of terminals within the port.

In essence, they will only handle receival, that is, the on- and off-loading of cargo from boats. In essence, I understand that the UAE would operate the cranes. Hardly a huge security risk.

Second, as previously mentioned, the UAE will not have anything to do with security in the ports. That is exactly the same as it was when the terminals were under the management of the British firm, P&O Steam and Navigation. Instead, the Department of Homeland Security, in conjunction with U.S. Customs and the Coast Guard and various other Federal agencies, will handle port security. Same as always.

Third, the company will still be required to hire legal U.S. workers. That means U.S. citizens and documented foreigners. They are not just going to bring in a container full of workers from dubious ports of call around the world. They still have to abide by U.S. hiring practices and regulations.

Also consider, that DP World is like the 6th largest ports manager in the world, and that Dubai is like the 10th largest port in the world. This is not a fly-by-night operation formed with the express purpose of fomenting terrorists in the U.S. Rather, it is a very large business with very large interests to protect. It seems unlikely that such a huge international business would be sponsoring terrorists and would be interested in allowing terrorist infiltration of their company.

Besides which, what would they even do??? Swing the crane too fast and damage the Plasma TVs from Korea? I don’t know if I would consider a shipment of broken TVs a terrorist act. I know Best Buy would.

As stated previously, DP World doesn’t control the contents of the containers, that’s the Federal government’s job and always has been.

A final thing to consider before we go back to foaming at the mouth is this:

When was the Container Security Initiative developed and why?
In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, U.S. Customs Service, now U.S. Customs and Border Protection, began developing antiterrorism programs to help secure the United States. Within months of these attacks, U.S. Customs Service created the Container Security Initiative (CSI). The primary purpose of CSI is to protect the global trading system and the trade lanes between CSI ports and the U.S.. Under the CSI program, a team of officers is deployed to work with host nation counterparts to target all containers that pose a potential threat. Announced in January 2002, CSI was first implemented in the ports shipping the greatest volume of containers to the United States. Today, 26 customs administrations have committed to joining CSI and are at various stages of implementation. CSI is now operational in ports in North America, Europe, Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin and Central America.
Click on the fact sheet

Basically, the CSI makes it so the U.S. can send customs agents to any participating port, and check containers there, before they even get to the U.S. All participants can do this. Any country involved can send its agents to any other participating country to check containers before they ship out to that country.

The U.S. created it. Guess who was the first in the Middle East to sign on? If you guessed UAE, you win the prize. What's the prize, you ask? Well, I'd say it's lingering doubts as to why a company willing to allow these inspections is such a suspect all of a sudden. Why aren't we bitching about China's ownership of West Coast ports?

Did I judge too harshly in my initial objections to this deal? Time will tell, but for the moment, I think yes. Has the media allowed this to boil needlessly without making the clarifications that would make so many more Americans understand why the President (probably correctly) doesn’t think this is a security risk? As if I really needed to answer that.

Paper: Coast Guard Has Port Co. Intel Gaps

Citing broad gaps in U.S. intelligence, the Coast Guard cautioned the Bush administration that it was unable to determine whether a United Arab Emirates-owned company might support terrorist operations, a Senate panel said Monday.

The surprise disclosure came during a hearing on Dubai-owned DP World's plans to take over significant operations at six leading U.S. ports. The port operations are now handled by London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company.

"There are many intelligence gaps, concerning the potential for DPW or P&O assets to support terrorist operations, that precludes an overall threat assessment of the potential" merger," an undated Coast Guard intelligence assessment says.

"The breadth of the intelligence gaps also infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities," the document says.

Sorry, I can't stop laughing.

Just spreadin' the wealth....

esdad71 said:
I am not defending anyone, I am looking at this from a business perspective, not a conspiracy perspective. Yes, it reads like the intro to a Clancy novel, but that is not the point. This is the 21st century, and the UAE is a player in the big leagues. This is how the world operates. A few years from now another deal will be made, everyone makes money and we move on.

You make an interesting point. This is how the world operates. But why? Is it because Dubai is more equipped to handle this?

It cannot be denied that Americans are being harmed by the outflow of industry (non-service) jobs in America. There's plenty of McJobs and dock working jobs, but what about the technical jobs and higher level administrative jobs? Why is the President not interested in allowing Americans to run the functions in question at their own ports?

In my opinion, what we are seeing, is a plan to make America more dependent upon foreign countries. This is the scheme of globalization which weakens a nation by forcing them into interdependence.

Also, what other nation has suffered terror attacks from Arabs in a port city? Hmmm... You say this position is "racist", but really, can the UAE expect Americans to not be jittery? Can a rational person not expect Americans to want to administer their own maritime flow of product after they've been struck in a port city by terror? I am certain any Americans in these cities will do a better job (read: more secure) than those whom Bush wants to favor. You say, "the borders are porous anyway, so what's the big deal?" but isn't that the point? We are being prevented, as Americans, from tightening up our borders. This is because BushCo want no borders.

No, I'd say we are being weakened by design. You may call it business as usual, but it should more correctly be called "business as usual for the rich, powerful and connected."


[edit on 27-2-2006 by smallpeeps]

loam

The big problems is that we may know who is taking care of the ports security in our side, but we will be in the dark as who is making deals in the Arab firm side.

Security has to be attain from both ends, but we are only taking care of one. . . our side.

The coast guard can not guarantee completely secure ports like that.

So I imagine that the statement by the coast guard is kind of guarded.

The whole point really is completely bypassing or ignoring the coast gaurd warning, and or a 45 day intelligence review required by law.
Isnt this what happened?
How can there be such confidence to not perform intense investigations of security issues? They just claim there are no issues of security.
I dont care what country/ethnicity it is. Other than someone getting richer, Setting the stage for some future endevor, or showing the world we can trust you... Can someone explain the logic behind why a country would sell or give ownership of a port to a foreign country.
I dont care if it was already owned by GB, they are our sister country and have owned this land before.

Originally posted by smallpeeps
It cannot be denied that Americans are being harmed by the outflow of industry (non-service) jobs in America. There's plenty of McJobs and dock working jobs, but what about the technical jobs and higher level administrative jobs? Why is the President not interested in allowing Americans to run the functions in question at their own ports?

In my opinion, what we are seeing, is a plan to make America more dependent upon foreign countries. This is the scheme of globalization which weakens a nation by forcing them into interdependence.

Originally posted by marg6043
loam

The big problems is that we may know who is taking care of the ports security in our side, but we will be in the dark as who is making deals in the Arab firm side.

Security has to be attain from both ends, but we are only taking care of one. . . our side.

Emphasis mine.

You know, after reading these responses, it makes me wonder if anyone read what I wrote. Was it all for naught? I know the popular method today is to be reactionary and form opinions in a flash; but, does it really do any of us any good to keep repeating things that aren’t correct? Does it help anyone to share opinions that have already been shown to be incorrect?

I don’t want to beat you guys up over it, but seriously, people I just wrote that these jobs are not going to be outsourced. In fact, how can they be outsourced? Someone has to be onsite in the U.S. to do the work, so, by definition, American workers will be doing the jobs. At the very least, they will be in-country, documented aliens, who will have to pay their taxes like everything else.

If an American company wants to buy the rights to manage the terminal operations in these ports, let them put up an offer. In the meantime, the ships have to be loaded and unloaded, so unless you guys are going to go volunteer down at the docks, DP World is it.

And, I just gave an example of how we are, in fact, checking things out in foreign ports. That’s the whole purpose of the CSI. The link is up there. Please, check it out! Besides which, changing ownership of the company that (basically) operates the cranes in these ports can’t really be shown to have a major impact on the security of those ports. Those activities take place at a different level.

If an attack happens in our ports, you’d be far better blaming our security apparatus than the company who unloaded the boat. Blaming DP World would be like blaming the company that provides TWA with its in flight food service for allowing terrorists to hijack planes on 911. That’s stupid, it’s not their job. That job belongs to the Government. Don’t let this ruckus take your eyes off that fact for a second.

Let's see............

Outsourcing blue collar production jobs overseas...........

then outsourcing even white collar IT jobs overseas........

Open borders for insourcing slave and/or unskilled labor here..........

Ports controlled by foreign governments with the potential of a strangle hold on our dollar value............

The US dollar supported by foreign oil..........

US Markets supported by foreign investments......

and the US Government supported by foreign debt purchases.......

hmmm.........seems like enough puzzel pieces for me to put together and say..........

"I guess we don't want to have a country here in the US very much longer .......huh?"

Destroy our borders, destroy our language, destroy our culture/heritage......destroy our economy......

.......and then the ole UN troops can come marching right in under martial law after the next 9/11 here and throw out the US Constitution in the process.....

....after all..........everything else is already being put into place..........

When I first heard about this debacle, I laughed. I figured Bush et al had been hoisted by their own petard. Their policy of inciting fear and islamophobia had bitten them in the ass.

On reflection, I do think letting the UAE govt. take over ports is a bad idea. The UAE funded money for the 9/11 attacks, they supported the Taliban govt., and nuclear technology from India to Iran and N.Korea went through the UAE. Not good.

Several people are now saying they will not be handling Port security, but this is incorrect. The coast gaurd sets the standards of security, and the controlling comapny (i.e. the govt. of UAE) will implement (or not) those standards.

But I still find it funny. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

I think the bigger point in all this is that the same people will still be off-loading equipment. So even if the UAE had malicious intentions they'd not be in a position to smuggle their bombs or whatever into the country. They now just own the employees who will be doing this...it's kinda tough to tell a dock hand "hey..this crate from Jibuti...yeah forget it exists"...I'm sure that'd go over real well.

Originally posted by rizla
Several people are now saying they will not be handling Port security, but this is incorrect. The coast gaurd sets the standards of security, and the controlling comapny (i.e. the govt. of UAE) will implement (or not) those standards.

Sorry, rizla, but this is misleading, and therefore incorrect as written. The terminal operator has to determine a plan for perimeter security (that is, keeping out thieves and such from the docks). They then file that plan with the Coast Guard. They then hire the security guards and whatnot. It is very much like the mall hiring a security firm to patrol during its closed hours.

Now, before people jump all over me and say, “it’s not like the mall at all,” or, “terrorists might attack the ports,” or, “DP World could let terrorists work there,” I’d just like to say, stop and think for a few minutes. It is just like security at the mall, or at your office, or at Government buildings. All they do is control the perimeter; they DON’T CONTROL WHAT COMES IN ON THOSE CONTAINERS.

There are targets ALL AROUND YOU. I live near nuclear power plants. Guess what, they have to hire security guards. Couldn’t terrorists just as easily get a job with the local rent-a-cop agency who has the contract for the plant? Come on guys, look past the hype. Regardless of who manages the ports, perimeter security is basically going to be the same. If someone wants to break in, does it really matter if DP World runs it or P&O? Not to me. If someone wants in bad enough, they’ll get in, regardless of who owns it. Just look at a secure installation like that $50M bank heist in England. Those thieves got in without any help from the UAE.

And, remember that they have to hire legal U.S. workers for these jobs, so it’s not like they are going to bring in a boatload of terrorists and give them all “security” jobs. Furthermore, DP World has already said that their chief security officer will be a U.S. citizen (not just a legal alien, but an actual CITIZEN).

And finally, once more for the deaf, IT IS THE JOB OF CUSTOMS TO CHECK THOSE CONTAINERS. They come in with stamps from Customs. If they don’t, that’s a Customs mistake. The only “security” being provided by DP World is some guys to patrol the docks and make sure nobody steals the TVs before they get to Best Buy. That’s all that’s required of any port operator.

Think people. Can’t we come up with any other reason why some people might be so upset about this? Here’s one just off the top of my head:

While DP World will certainly employee U.S. workers, they may not be subject to laws concerning unionization. Perhaps they won’t be willing to pay $70/hour to some guy to supervise the crane operator. Maybe the dock unions wont last much longer. In fact, check out Britain’s ports. Unions don’t exist there anymore in large part because of privatization of various port operations.

That said, the unions are probably howling mad at the thought. Now, who historically gets money from unions? Democrats? In New York? Perhaps a particularly vocal opponent of this deal who gains an additional benefit of making the President look “soft” on terror?

I for one would really love to see who got (or is getting) campaign contributions from the dock workers union. I think that would tell us a lot more than a 45-day “security review.”

Especially in an election year, espcially in a time when it's okay to bash Arabs, especially when the President can be made to appear "weak" on a position.

Originally posted by Hamburglar
And finally, once more for the deaf, IT IS THE JOB OF CUSTOMS TO CHECK THOSE CONTAINERS. They come in with stamps from Customs. If they don’t, that’s a Customs mistake. The only “security” being provided by DP World is some guys to patrol the docks and make sure nobody steals the TVs before they get to Best Buy. That’s all that’s required of any port operator.

Nobody's deaf, Hamburglar. You're just so much smarter than us, it takes us a while to see your points.

Think people. Can’t we come up with any other reason why some people might be so upset about this? Here’s one just off the top of my head:

While DP World will certainly employee U.S. workers, they may not be subject to laws concerning unionization. Perhaps they won’t be willing to pay $70/hour to some guy to supervise the crane operator. Maybe the dock unions wont last much longer. In fact, check out Britain’s ports. Unions don’t exist there anymore in large part because of privatization of various port operations.

That said, the unions are probably howling mad at the thought. Now, who historically gets money from unions? Democrats? In New York? Perhaps a particularly vocal opponent of this deal who gains an additional benefit of making the President look “soft” on terror?

So you're asking us to "think", and your example of thinking is to politicise the issue and make it a red vs. blue discussion? That's thinking?

I do not think that selling oversight of these ports to a foreign state run company is the best way to resolve labor issues at those ports. Is that what you are suggesting? Disemploy lazy overpaid union workers so as to break their evil hold on the ports? Clarify please.

can those who manage the terminals decide from which countries they will accept cargo from? can they decide they just don't want to accept certain types of cargo? for example, what would happen if both this company, and all those chinese companies decided that they didn't want to allow ships carrying oil from porting in their terminals in the US? could they do this? and if so, would this become a national security issue?

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Nobody's deaf, Hamburglar. You're just so much smarter than us, it takes us a while to see your points.

LOL, I doubt that I'm much smarter than most folks here. I think we all get frustrated sometimes when it seems like our voices go unheard.

Originally posted by smallpeeps
So you're asking us to "think", and your example of thinking is to politicise the issue and make it a red vs. blue discussion? That's thinking?

Let’s be fair, this issue has been politicized from the outset. I am only suggesting an alternative politicization of the situation. And remember, I did say it was off the top of my head. And, while I did suggest someone in particular, I also asked who else received campaign money. Given the number of reds and blues making a stink, I think both are involved.

Also, I’m not suggesting with that theory that people want to push this deal in order to break up unions. Instead, I’m suggesting that this is a fairly innocuous deal from seemingly all angles, except that it might harm unions. So what could the uproar really be about? If it’s not really about security, and it’s not really about outsourcing jobs, and it’s not really about “ownership,” what’s it all about?

My alternative theory, and I’m sure there are many more that a community like ours could posit, suggests that this deal was set to go through after having been properly vetted (which is up for dispute, I know). Then, the dock unions got wind of it and realized that it could tear them apart. Then, the unions decided to call on the politicians who owe them favors to make a big stinky mess of the whole deal.

That’s why I’m so curious about who has received contributions from the unions. I want to know if the same people who got major campaign contributions from unions are the same making a stink. That would tend to suggest that my theory is correct. And, I think we can realistically chalk up the increasing number of less vocal opponents to jumping on the national security bandwagon.

I think a good exercise is the “who benefits, who doesn’t” game for both the deal and the furor over the deal.

Here’s what I think:

The actual port deal

Who benefits most: DP World; possibly consumers if savings from lower dock wages are passed on; our relationship with the UAE

Who gets hurt most: Union labor (presumably, DP World won’t pay inflated wages to union labor)

The current frenzy over the deal

Who benefits most: Union labor (if the deal doesn’t go); Hillary Clinton (who adds weight to the image she wants to cultivate—namely that she is tougher on national security than Bush/Reds, and therefore the right man for the job in ‘08—and that she will pay her debts to campaign financers); any other politician who took campaign money from unions (they benefit by appearing to support the union cause)

Who gets hurt most: DP World (and who cares, right, it’s just a bunch of Ay-Rabs, right?); Bush (by seeming soft on national defense)

The reason I highlight Clinton, is because she has been quite vocal about this (along with some others) and seems to be in the best possible position on this deal. No matter what happens, she will be in good shape (the classic Win-Win for her).

For example, if the deal goes through, she can say she fought against it (and have the support of the unions), and she can show so-called “middle America” that she is tough on national security, and she scores points at Bush’s expense. If the deal doesn’t go, same thing, only to an even larger degree.

Any other theories out there other than “these politicians are all telling exactly how they feel”?

Oh, and peeps, thanks for listening

Clinton's become far too oppurtunistic a politician for my liking. Remember not too long ago, she showed up at an NAACP meeting and waxed lyrical about the comparisons between the fight for the rights of African-Americans (the right to vote etc.) and the Democrat's being knocked about by the Republicans in recent times.

I knew this deal had something to do with Iran, and here is the proof:

UAE SITS ASTRIDE ROUTE TO IRAN

United Arab Emirates is located at the center of an oil-dependent world. This tiny state forms the promontory that juts out into the famed Straits of Hormuz through which 40% of the world’s oil passes every day. Across the narrow straights sits Iran, the next victim on the list of "axis of evil" nations. Any attack on Iran will require that military forces quickly deploy to Dubai to forestall the closing of the straits and the subsequent devastation that would cost to world oil supplies and financial markets. This is the critical point which is being intentionally concealed by America’s diversionary media. This is the reason that President Bush continues to force the Dubai port-plan even though 70% of the American people and Congress resoundingly oppose it.
www.freemarketnews.com...

Bush admin. seems determined to invade Iran.

RESPECT

Originally posted by proprog
I knew this deal had something to do with Iran, and here is the proof:

UAE SITS ASTRIDE ROUTE TO IRAN

United Arab Emirates is located at the center of an oil-dependent world. This tiny state forms the promontory that juts out into the famed Straits of Hormuz through which 40% of the world’s oil passes every day. Across the narrow straights sits Iran, the next victim on the list of "axis of evil" nations. Any attack on Iran will require that military forces quickly deploy to Dubai to forestall the closing of the straits and the subsequent devastation that would cost to world oil supplies and financial markets. This is the critical point which is being intentionally concealed by America’s diversionary media. This is the reason that President Bush continues to force the Dubai port-plan even though 70% of the American people and Congress resoundingly oppose it.
www.freemarketnews.com...

Bush admin. seems determined to invade Iran.

RESPECT

Thats your proof? Based on somebody's analysis on a website that is very anti-American website? Don't always judge on geography to help conclude such theories.

www.thehill.com...

As the House Appropriations Committee yesterday marked up legislation to kill Dubai Ports World’s acquisition of Britain’s Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation (P&O), the emirate let it be known that it is preparing to hit back hard if necessary.

A source close to the deal said members of Dubai’s royal family are furious at the hostility both Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill have shown toward the deal.

“They’re saying, ‘All we’ve done for you guys, all our purchases, we’ll stop it, we’ll just yank it,’” the source said.

Retaliation from the emirate could come against lucrative deals with aircraft maker Boeing and by curtailing the docking of hundreds of American ships, including U.S. Navy ships, each year at its port in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the source added.

Well, seems we pissed them off and I feel that they are justified. This is a business deal, and a little common sense telss you that. This is nothing more than platforming for both Democrats and Republicans and it is going to have larger reprecussions than we think.

Originally posted by esdad71
Well, seems we pissed them off and I feel that they are justified. This is a business deal, and a little common sense telss you that. This is nothing more than platforming for both Democrats and Republicans and it is going to have larger reprecussions than we think.

WORD!

You have voted esdad71 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

I told you that it should not go through, and that I was not the only one that felt that way. Read this...

www.washingtonpost.com...

It should have been this way from the beginning. All of you that were for this deal should realize that you were in the minority on this one.