Ok, as most of you have seen Dubai Ports World (DPW) has bought Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation (POSN), if not read HERE

Now, from what I've seen Dems & some Reps, even, are claimg the transfer of the US based ports should not go to this Arab nation in which 2 of the 9/11 terrorists came from because it is a threat to national security.

A few things I've read/heard about this deal.
-2 of the 9/11 terrorists are from United Arab Emirates (UAE)
-9/11 monies went through UAE banks
-UAE is called an ally now (I spose that is objective though)
-US ports are owned by not only US companies but many other around the world too
-Only 5% of the incoming cargo is checked for whatever
-POSN owned the ports & was purchased by DPW
-Sales deal was $6.8billion (it is my assumption that the $6.8billion was for the entire POSN company, not just the 6 US ports)
-In order for a US company to gain control over the ports (we don't have control now) we'd have to purchase them from DPW for the value of the 6 ports, not $6.8billion
-12 Major US intelligence agencies have approved this deal

My Opinion:
I think we should let the deal go through.  We're not losing anything, we're not gaining anything, I don't see much of a problem here.  The US would still have whatever legislative/safety regulation control over the DPW owned ports as we would if it was owned by a US company (or Chinese company for that matter).
Chinese companies own US ports, why don't we kick them out under terrorist type allegations too?

What do y'all think?
Why is there being made such a fuss over this?  (I know the fuss has to do with National Security, but why?)



...I think that about covers it, for now.

I think it's a storm in a teacup. The US doesn't even own those ports now, a British company does, so it's all bollocks. Regardless of who owns them, they're still manned and mostly operated by the US anyway.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=14343.msg146896#msg146896 date=1140701188]
I think it's a storm in a teacup. The US doesn't even own those ports now, a British company does, so it's all bollocks. Regardless of who owns them, they're still manned and mostly operated by the US anyway.
[/quote]
Storm in a teacup?...interesting little saying, what's it mean?

I don't understand why people are so quick to jump up & criticize the administration of doing wrong when ANYTHING that might be SLIGHTLY controversial happens.
My dad, who used to be conservative, was upset about it because the administration didn't let the public know ahead of time, same sorta thing w/Cheney's shooting incident.

I don't see how that is grounds for critism since most deals like that are never approved by the president, nor does he even hear about them.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=14343.msg146896#msg146896 date=1140701188]
I think it's a storm in a teacup. The US doesn't even own those ports now, a British company does, so it's all bollocks. Regardless of who owns them, they're still manned and mostly operated by the US anyway.
[/quote]

The ports are not owned by the British company, they are managed by the British company, if I recall correctly the government owns the ports but contracts companies to manage and run them.

I was wondering when some one would make a post about this. It took a while, I guess people were interested in more important things like the VP trying to murder his friend with bird shot and did not want to tell the all mighty press about it.

Anyway, here is some good reading on the issue:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185825,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185799,00.html

As for my personal opinion I think that Bush and his administration is wrong on this issue. Our port security is horrible as it is and with this deal the UAE Company will have control of the personnel they hire and the personnel that conducts manifest checks on incoming and outgoing cargo. What stops a terrorist of Arabic decent from getting hired by an Arabic company and screwing with the manifest list and receiving a nuclear device like it was any other cargo?

Some people might argue that we are paranoid that it's an Arabic company and this is racial profiling. Well damn right, this is racial profiling. When I'm at the airport I don't want them to perform searches on 90 year old Caucasian grandmas, I want them to search the Middle Eastern looking 20 year olds. Racial profiling is vital.

Also the British did not topple the twin towers, the Arabic Islamists did.

But since only about 5% of the incoming cargo is checked now isn't it just as easy to sneak just about anything in?

You pay off the checker guy by saying you have some import car in there that isn't legal in the US & he pockets the money & looks the other way.
I don't see how our security situation will worsen.
I agree that port inspections need to become more frequent but how to stop the inspector's corruption?  Sure most of them are probably good guys, but between a few corrupt dudes & a few million dollars I think anything could be snuck in.


Even if the ports were owned (& not operated) by why wouldn't the US still have regulatory control over them?  I believe the ports would be as safe as they are now (not very).


Sidenote:
Dubai is awfully rich, dang.

The US ports are part of the US borders, the US government regulates boarders.

What you fail to understand is that the longshoremen that work at these ports also live and have families in the cities where these ports are located so why would a longshoreman accept being paid off and look the other way if a nuclear device was being shipped into his own city where he lives? You are comparing cars here with nuclear bombs, not the same thing.

I wasn't comparing them, I was just saying the guy could pay him off & SAY its a car & just to check another container.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=14343.msg146920#msg146920 date=1140727126]
The ports are not owned by the British company, they are managed by the British company, if I recall correctly the government owns the ports but contracts companies to manage and run them.
[/quote]

Ah, I thought it was the other way round. I'm still not sure it matters terribly, though: surely port security is managed by the government, irrespective of who's managing the port?


[quote author=Invert link=topic=14343.msg146920#msg146920 date=1140727126]
What stops a terrorist of Arabic decent from getting hired by an Arabic company and screwing with the manifest list and receiving a nuclear device like it was any other cargo?
[/quote]

What stops them from getting hired anyway?


[quote author=Invert link=topic=14343.msg146920#msg146920 date=1140727126]
Racial profiling is vital.
[/quote]

It is not. It has a part to play, but to overstate its importance is extremely dangerous. Security that relies too much on any one one thing is brittle, and thus prone to failure. If we train people to unduly consider people's ethnicity, it is reasonable to suspect that they will be less likely to suspect people who do not meet whatever ethnic profile has been deemed relevant. This creates a massive security hole. Remember, also, that many (if not most) terrorists are not arab males. Quoting Bruce Schneier:

[quote]
Shoe-bomber Richard Reid was British. Germaine Lindsay, one of the 7/7 London bombers, was Afro-Caribbean. Here are some more examples:

    In 1986, a 32-year-old Irish woman, pregnant at the time, was about to board an El Al flight from London to Tel Aviv when El Al security agents discovered an explosive device hidden in the false bottom of her bag. The woman’s boyfriend--the father of her unborn child--had hidden the bomb.

    In 1987, a 70-year-old man and a 25-year-old woman--neither of whom were Middle Eastern--posed as father and daughter and brought a bomb aboard a Korean Air flight from Baghdad to Thailand. En route to Bangkok, the bomb exploded, killing all on board.

    In 1999, men dressed as businessmen (and one dressed as a Catholic priest) turned out to be terrorist hijackers, who forced an Avianca flight to divert to an airstrip in Colombia, where some passengers were held as hostages for more than a year-and-half.

The 2002 Bali terrorists were Indonesian. The Chechnyan terrorists who downed the Russian planes were women. Timothy McVeigh and the Unibomber were Americans. The Basque terrorists are Basque, and Irish terrorists are Irish. Tha Tamil Tigers are Sri Lankan.

And many Muslims are not Arabs. Even worse, almost everyone who is Arab is not a terrorist -- many people who look Arab are not even Muslims. So not only are there an large number of false negatives -- terrorists who don't meet the profile -- but there an enormous number of false positives: innocents that do meet the profile.
[/quote]


[quote author=Invert link=topic=14343.msg146920#msg146920 date=1140727126]
Also the British did not topple the twin towers, the Arabic Islamists did.
[/quote]

And therein lies the storm in the teacup. My response to that point is: so what? Just because the 9/11 terrorists were Muslims, is that a reason to distrust all Muslims?

If you can't imagine what would stop someone from hiring a Muslim that is not a US citizen that might have access to security documents and cargo manifest in post 9/11 then I can't help you figure anything out.

Not all Muslims are terrorists but most terrorist are Muslims so yes that is a reason to distrust all Muslims unless proven otherwise.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=14343.msg147044#msg147044 date=1140895246]
If you can't imagine what would stop someone from hiring a Muslim that is not a US citizen that might have access to security documents and cargo manifest in post 9/11 then I can't help you figure anything out.
[/quote]

I think that view is narrow-minded, not to mention prejudiced.

Your distinction between US and non-US muslims is completely arbitrary. It's not like the US has never produced terrorists, and since you appear to consider Islam to be the defining factor, I'm not sure why you're introducing nationality into it at all. Should we deny all muslims access to jobs that could potentially be abused to facilitate terrorism? Would that be ethical or reasonable?

Your argument is typical of the knee-jerk, emotive reactions people often have that may feel useful, but don't stand up to scrutiny. Putting all muslims in jail might be an effective way to reduce terrorism, but it's not an ethical or reasonable thing to do. You're advocating a less radical version of the same thing.


[quote author=Invert link=topic=14343.msg147044#msg147044 date=1140895246]
Not all Muslims are terrorists but most terrorist are Muslims so yes that is a reason to distrust all Muslims unless proven otherwise.
[/quote]

Even if that's true -- and I'm not sure it is -- it's still missing the point. If that view prevails, terrorists will simply hide their religious beliefs, so as to not raise suspicion. You gain practically no security by adopting that point of view.

The security issue stemming from ownership is not only one of employment, but of control.  Ports are vital for national defense of any country possessing them.  In the entire history of the United States territorial conflicts, port control has been the major determining factor for balance of war.  We must not allow foreign nationals to control our ports, period.  This applies to British control, Danish control, French or UA control.

Perhaps a comprimise is in order.  The Department of Homeland Security could hire a port security director for the top 12 major ports.  This person would have unfetered access to everything going in or out of the port, including the business financials for the administrator of the port.  This would allow Danes and Brits to continue administering those they do run, and not block potentially excellent management of our ports based on nefarius views of nationality.

I rather assumed, as I said before, that the US would retain control of port security regardless of who was managing day-to-day operations... much like airports. The people who manage airports are not, so far as I am aware, in charge of customs and immigration. The government does those things.

Yes well I'm all for the most competitive person running an operation regardless of their nationality, which is more an elusive value now than ever before.  If Joe Redneck from Virginia can't run the Norfolk News Shipping Yard then let Igmaha Punatamu do it, what do I care?  I want my imports/exports done efficiently and have costs driven down.

[quote author=Grok link=topic=14343.msg147232#msg147232 date=1141078642]
Yes well I'm all for the most competitive person running an operation regardless of their nationality, which is more an elusive value now than ever before.  If Joe Redneck from Virginia can't run the Norfolk News Shipping Yard then let Igmaha Punatamu do it, what do I care?  I want my imports/exports done efficiently and have costs driven down.
[/quote]

Were do you stand on security?

[quote author=Invert link=topic=14343.msg147234#msg147234 date=1141079495]
[quote author=Grok link=topic=14343.msg147232#msg147232 date=1141078642]
Yes well I'm all for the most competitive person running an operation regardless of their nationality, which is more an elusive value now than ever before.  If Joe Redneck from Virginia can't run the Norfolk News Shipping Yard then let Igmaha Punatamu do it, what do I care?  I want my imports/exports done efficiently and have costs driven down.
[/quote]

Were do you stand on security?
[/quote]

Thought I had said this but maybe didnt save my post.  Key national strategic sites should be monitored and compliant with federal defense guidelines for civilian operated facilities.  They need to be monitored by the Department of Homeland Security officers who have full access to everything going into and out of the port, with unlimited ability to make reviewable decisions/orders on the spot.  That is to say if a DHS officer is at a port and sees a problem, he can give orders to anyone on the pier and they must comply due to his command authority.  I used "reviewable" since his orders were made to a civilian agency, the orders once made should be brought before a review board no later than say 90 days later, if the shipyard has any complaints about the order.  I would even go so far as to station a coast guard unit to each major shipping port.

[quote author=Grok link=topic=14343.msg147331#msg147331 date=1141138083]
[quote author=Invert link=topic=14343.msg147234#msg147234 date=1141079495]
[quote author=Grok link=topic=14343.msg147232#msg147232 date=1141078642]
Yes well I'm all for the most competitive person running an operation regardless of their nationality, which is more an elusive value now than ever before.  If Joe Redneck from Virginia can't run the Norfolk News Shipping Yard then let Igmaha Punatamu do it, what do I care?  I want my imports/exports done efficiently and have costs driven down.
[/quote]

Were do you stand on security?
[/quote]

Thought I had said this but maybe didnt save my post.  Key national strategic sites should be monitored and compliant with federal defense guidelines for civilian operated facilities.  They need to be monitored by the Department of Homeland Security officers who have full access to everything going into and out of the port, with unlimited ability to make reviewable decisions/orders on the spot.  That is to say if a DHS officer is at a port and sees a problem, he can give orders to anyone on the pier and they must comply due to his command authority.  I used "reviewable" since his orders were made to a civilian agency, the orders once made should be brought before a review board no later than say 90 days later, if the shipyard has any complaints about the order.  I would even go so far as to station a coast guard unit to each major shipping port.
[/quote]

That might work for security.
In your previous post you say that you are for the most competitive person running an operation regardless of their nationality, my question is what if Hamas was the most competitive entity would you be fine with them running our major ports?

Also, do you think that capitalism should trump patriotism when 2 are in conflict?

Regardless of their nationality, does not say or imply regardless of any sense.  Would you have been fine with Ted Bundy dating your sister?  Race and nationality just don't play a part in who effectively and profitably a port can be run.

Here's a good commentary on why this whole issue doesn't really matter much, if anyone's interested:

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/03/01/dubai_and_our_ports_whos_taking_over_what.html

I read on a newspaper in Reno that they backed out, too bad.

Wonder what will happen to those terminals now, who is in control now?