Log in

View Full Version : Port Security


Gypsy
02-19-2006, 10:16
For the life of me, I cannot understand why this is okay. Can someone please enlighten me?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/16/AR2006021601476.html

White House Defends Port Sale to Arab Co.

By TED BRIDIS and DEVLIN BARRETT
The Associated Press
Thursday, February 16, 2006; 10:01 PM

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration on Thursday rebuffed criticism about potential security risks of a $6.8 billion sale that gives a company in the United Arab Emirates control over significant operations at six major American ports.

Lawmakers asked the White House to reconsider its earlier approval of the deal.

The sale to state-owned Dubai Ports World was "rigorously reviewed" by a U.S. committee that considers security threats when foreign companies seek to buy or invest in American industry, National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said.

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, run by the Treasury Department, reviewed an assessment from U.S. intelligence agencies. The committee's 12 members agreed unanimously the sale did not present any problems, the department said.

"We wanted to look at this one quite closely because it relates to ports," Stewart Baker, an assistant secretary in the Homeland Security Department, told The Associated Press. "It is important to focus on this partner as opposed to just what part of the world they come from. We came to the conclusion that the transaction should not be halted."

The unusual defense of the secretive committee, which reviews hundreds of such deals each year, came in response to criticism about the purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

The world's fourth-largest ports company runs commercial operations at shipping terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

Four senators and three House members asked the administration Thursday to reconsider its approval. The lawmakers contended the UAE is not consistent in its support of U.S. terrorism-fighting efforts.

"The potential threat to our country is not imagined, it is real," Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., said in a House speech.

The Homeland Security Department said it was legally impossible under the committee's rules to reconsider its approval without evidence DP World gave false information or withheld vital details from U.S. officials. The 30-day window for the committee to voice objections has ended.

DP World said it had received all regulatory approvals.

"We intend to maintain and, where appropriate, enhance current security arrangements," the company said in a statement. "It is very much business as usual for the P&O terminals" in the United States.

In Dubai, the UAE's foreign minister described his country as an important U.S. ally but declined to respond directly to the concerns expressed in Washington.

"We have worked very closely with the United States on a number of issues relating to the combat of terrorism, prior to and post Sept. 11," Sheik Abdullah Bin Zayed al-Nahyan told The Associated Press.

U.S. lawmakers said the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan. They also said the UAE was one of only three countries to recognize the now-toppled Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government.

The State Department describes the UAE as a vital partner in the fight against terrorism. Dubai's own ports have participated since last year in U.S. efforts to detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials.

Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y., urged congressional hearings on the deal.

"At a time when America is leading the world in the war on terrorism and spending billions of dollars to secure our homeland, we cannot cede control of strategic assets to foreign nations with spotty records on terrorism," Fossella said.

Critics also have cited the UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"Outsourcing the operations of our largest ports to a country with a dubious record on terrorism is a homeland security and commerce accident waiting to happen," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. "The administration needs to take another look at this deal."

Separately, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said Thursday it will conduct its own review of the deal and urged the government to defend its decision.

In a letter to the Treasury Department, Port Authority chairman Anthony Coscia said the independent review by his agency was necessary "to protect its interests."

The lawmakers pressing the White House to reconsider included Sens. Schumer, Tom Coburn, R-Okla., Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Reps. Foley, Fossella and Chris Shays, R-Conn.

Team Sergeant
02-19-2006, 10:33
Selling the port is one concern, but selling the port to a "tribe" that is about 90% sunni moslems is about as smart as selling cruise missiles to iran. Some things do not make sense.

Gypsy
02-19-2006, 10:38
Well, that's what I'm screaming TS. It's flat out beyond dangerous to basically "give" our port security away. I cannot agree with the Administration on this at all.

Jack Moroney (RIP)
02-19-2006, 10:40
The only way that this makes any sense to me, and I know this is probably as far fetched as Mr. Harsey sending FS a valentine, is that we have made a deal with the devil. If these folks are not restricted by our assinine security regulations and oversight by lawyers and the village idiots we send to congress, perhaps they have agreed (with using our folks and technology) to enact some procedures that might actually work in finding that proverbial needle in the haystack. Now I feel as uneasy about this on the surface as anyone, but it wouldn't be the first time I have used surrogates to do things that our decent, naive if not ignorant, hand holding, kumbya singing, inward looking, non-gunowning, I'm okay-you're okay population at large just wouldn't understand or bless at the behest of folks way above my pay grade. Just a thought or perhaps just a dream.

Gypsy
02-19-2006, 10:55
As usual Sir your perspective and response provides me food for thought, thank you.

While I don't believe our President would do anything to endanger our Country...truly I am uneasy.

bluebb
02-27-2006, 02:00
I work at the Port of Tacoma as a Customs and Border Protection Officer so I may be able to offer some insight into this deal. Dubai Ports World will take over the management of certain terminals at the six ports. They are not buying the ports or the land the terminals are on. They will lease the property and equipment and hire the longshoremen to lade and unlade the vessels. In my experience they will hire 95% Americans to manage the operations at these terminals. The only security they will be responsible for is gate guards. Port security will still fall on the Coast Guard, CBP, and the state and local police. The vessels that arrive normally belong to different companies so Dubai Ports World has no real influence on them. The cargo on those vessels belongs to still other companies and Dubai Ports World has no real influence on them either.
I don’t want to give the impression that there is no problem but I don’t think port security is the problem. The problem I see is the lack of an American company to step up to the plate and take on the management of these port terminals.
I know that here at the Port of Tacoma we have Danish, Taiwanese, and Korean terminal operators and they don’t affect our Port security operations at all.

Blue

QRQ 30
02-27-2006, 07:56
Selling the port is one concern, but selling the port to a "tribe" that is about 90% sunni moslems is about as smart as selling cruise missiles to iran. Some things do not make sense.

I guess most of the arguments are out there. For the most part people have gotten beyomd the headlines and politics. But let me cite one statistic: 95% of our materials and munitions to the ME pass through DUBAI.

tk27
02-27-2006, 09:13
U.S. Ports Raise Proxy Problem
Commentary by Bruce Schneier
02:00 AM Feb, 23, 2006 (http://www.wired.com/news/columns/1,70258-0.html)

This article by cryptographer and security technologist Bruce Schneier helped put things in perspective for me. That said I wish Congress and the media looked at other greater security issues (cargo inspection, borders, commercial/industrial espionage) at the scale that they have for the port issue. But if the scope that they were do so (little more then political posturing) were just like on the port issue, its just as well they dont.

skibum
02-27-2006, 09:24
Just heard on the radio this morning that it's twenty-one ports, not six. Anyone else heard the same?

It's great that Dubai Ports World will not be involved in physical security. But they can turn a blind to any irregularities, and what's more, place people in charge in management/ supervisory positions who may be sympathetic to the jihadists' cause. We're HIRING the fox to guard the hen house.

And yeah, it is pathetic that the world's greatest maritime power does not have any companies that can administer port facilities. Although, on the same news show where they said that it is twenty-one ports, it was reported that three other companies bid for the port contracts, but withdrew their bids because it would not be a financially sound move. Which, of course, brings up the question of why Dubai would be willing to make such a move.

skibum
02-27-2006, 09:25
"...turn a blind EYE to any irregularities."

Jeebus.

QRQ 30
02-27-2006, 09:49
Just heard on the radio this morning that it's twenty-one ports, not six. Anyone else heard the same?

I heard the world is coming to an end tomorrow.


It's great that Dubai Ports World will not be involved in physical security. But they can turn a blind to any irregularities, and what's more, place people in charge in management/ supervisory positions who may be sympathetic to the jihadists' cause. We're HIRING the fox to guard the hen house.[\QUOTE]

I don't think anyone other than Longshoremen will supervise Longshoremen..
80% of all containers are inspected and sealed at the Port of Embarcation.

[QUOTE]

And yeah, it is pathetic that the world's greatest maritime power does not have any companies that can administer port facilities. Although, on the same news show where they said that it is twenty-one ports, it was reported that three other companies bid for the port contracts, but withdrew their bids because it would not be a financially sound move. Which, of course, brings up the question of why Dubai would be willing to make such a move.

EH? Go to a port and see how many American Flag carriers there are. We may be the most power Naval Warfare country in the world but we got out of the shipping business long ago. Tom Long, a friend of mine with a commercial diving company has an AMS (American Maritime Services) contract. He hasn't worked on a US Flag Carrier in 15 years! Based upon the Tort laws in this country would you take a bomb like that!!

QRQ 30
02-27-2006, 11:54
Every morning all of the President's dept. heads get together and decide what should be included in the President's Daily INSUM. The sale was brought up to all of the intel/security heads and given the go ahead. They did not see a necessity for informing the POTUS. They failed to foresee the panick by the public and political furor.

A more proper method would have been to educate and inform the public ahead of time. This sale will more than likely go in 45 days or as soon as various political agenda milk it for what it is worth.

In military terms, they failed to forsee the resistance and failed to prep the LZ.