what do you think?

[JJ40]

So, what do you think about some U.S. ports being run by a Dubai company?

The ports are in New York, New Jersey, New Orleans, Miami, Philadelphia, and Baltimore. The firm would not be in charge of security. Of course, part of the argument against it is that two of the 9/11 terrorists were from the UAE.

Interestingly, Bush didn't know about this deal until recently. "White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said that President Bush learned from the news media about the sale of a London-based company controlling ports in the United States to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates.

"It was getting more press coverage; that's how he found out about it," said McClellan. "There was no objection raised by any of the departments during the review process, or any concerns expressed about potential national security threats. And that's why it didn't rise to the presidential level."

Both Republicans and Democrats want to delay the deal. Bush says that if Congress passes a law to block it, he will veto it. "I can understand why some in Congress have raised questions about whether or not our country will be less secure as a result of this transaction," Bush noted. "But they need to know that our government has looked at this issue and looked at it carefully."
(Huh? He just learned of this through the media!!!!!)

The deal is supposed to take effect tomorrow.

Your thoughts...?

Julie

[tbb113]

I don't have a problem with the sale of the London company to a Dubai company. My discomfort level is more along the lines of why isn't there a US based company that can be hired to provide port security.

I just find it incredibly sad (but extremely typical) that we as a country go to the cheapest provider for services rather than the best provider or an American based company (and yes, I realize the best is not necessarily American)

[Gumbeaux]

Of course, part of the argument against it is that two of the 9/11 terrorists were from the UAE.

Another part of the argument is that some of the money used to finance the 9/11 attacks was laundered in the UAE.

[Chefzhat]

I don't have a problem with the sale of the London company to a Dubai company. My discomfort level is more along the lines of why isn't there a US based company that can be hired to provide port security.

I just find it incredibly sad (but extremely typical) that we as a country go to the cheapest provider for services rather than the best provider or an American based company (and yes, I realize the best is not necessarily American)

As I understand it, there isn't a US company that does this type of thing. Additionally, its not like this was up for bid. P&O Britain owned it, then sold it. It really has nothing to do with the US.

But you're right - the Walmart-ization of America - warms my heart :rolleyes:

Debie

[jmarie]

This deal with Dubai Ports World does not give them "control of our ports." It does give them control over some, not all, of the terminals in our ports, not the ports themselves.

It has been claimed that the Dubai company was taking control of six major U.S. ports. There are 300 terminals at those ports. Dubai Ports World is going to handle nine of them." That's 9 of the terminals.

There is a difference between a port and a terminal.

Or at least this is my understanding of the facts as they begin to come forth out of the hoopla.
joyce

[ellielk]

[QUOTE=tbb113]I don't have a problem with the sale of the London company to a Dubai company. My discomfort level is more along the lines of why isn't there a US based company that can be hired to provide port security./QUOTE]

An American company will be providing security. However, since most of the containers that come into the ports are not inspected, security is a so-so proposition.

[tbb113]

An American company will be providing security. However, since most of the containers that come into the ports are not inspected, security is a so-so proposition.

But they aren't being inspected now either.

Lets face it, if the Britian firm was sold to a firm based in a non-Arab country, there would be absolutely no mention or worries. The elected officials and media is playing into sterotypical prejudices by making this an issue (especially in an election year). Am I getting cynical as I get older...you betcha! :(

[blazedog]

I think it diverts attention from the more critical issue of why the Bush administration has failed to provide adequate funding in order to provide essential security at ports including checking for nuclear material -- now that seems like a no-brainer. :p

It would really be nice if this provided enough pressue to provide adequate funding and also "de-porkified" the whole funding for national security in which amounts are spent to protect ridiculous targets in the hinterlands while shorting obvious targets such as NY and Washington DC.

As for the actual issue of control of the company, today's papers reported that the Coast Guard had actually raised security issues.

[JenniferJJ]

As I understand it, there isn't a US company that does this type of thing. Additionally, its not like this was up for bid. P&O Britain owned it, then sold it. It really has nothing to do with the US.

Debie

Could you explain what all is involved in running the ports? It's pretty sad that we don't have people who are/can be trained to do this when we have U.S. all over the country who are desparate for jobs.

[tbb113]

Could you explain what all is involved in running the ports? It's pretty sad that we don't have people who are/can be trained to do this when we have U.S. all over the country who are desparate for jobs.

I have no idea what it takes to run the ports...but if there aren't US businesses equipped to do it, then it makes sense that we need to hire firms based in other countries. I would still think that the majority of the people actually working at the ports are living here in the US (either as citizens or on green cards. I doubt (but I could be wrong) that we are importing people here to do the actual work). Is this really any different than having any non-US based business doing business in the US?

[JJ40]

tbb113, I believe you are right, that Americans will provide most of the manpower at the ports.

I think it diverts attention from the more critical issue of why the Bush administration has failed to provide adequate funding in order to provide essential security at ports including checking for nuclear material -- now that seems like a no-brainer.

blazedog, I agree that security is a crucial issue...from what I understand, it has not increased since 9/11.

Since a British company was previously doing the job, it seems it's not the issue of whether a foreign company should do it, but rather whether a middle-Eastern company should do it (and one which had ties to 9/11). Some call it bigotry to be opposed to having the Dubai company controlling some of the ports. Is it, or is it protecting US interests?

[Chefzhat]

Could you explain what all is involved in running the ports? It's pretty sad that we don't have people who are/can be trained to do this when we have U.S. all over the country who are desparate for jobs.
We do have Americans working there - the ownership of the company was British. Or rather, may soon be UAE.

BTW: Don't believe the "5% security level check" tidbit that is floating all around the media. Not so.

If nothing else, some members of congress are going to have to admit that there is a threat to our national security in the Middle East. :eek: Ya think?

Debie

[blazedog]

And FWIW, the parent company supports a boycott of Israel which is something which the former British controlled company didn't:)

[Gumbeaux]

I think if a nuclear device is found at a U.S. port it is way too late to do anything about it. All a terrorist has to do is attach a battery powered GPS to an atomic dirty bomb, along with a cell phone used as a wireless triggering device. The terrorist, sitting half way across the world, would then only have to watch the position of the ship on a computer to decide when to detonate the bomb using the cell phone just before the ship docks at the port.

Please don't flame me for publicly stating this. The terrorists already know this.

Our best way of stopping a nuclear device from entering this country is for us to have good enough intelligence overseas to keep the device from being loaded on a ship destined for the United States.

[jking323]

Another part of the argument is that some of the money used to finance the 9/11 attacks was laundered in the UAE.

I've heard that part, and I wonder how much of the 9/11 money was laundered through banks in New York, or London, or Zurich, or Hong Kong. Dubai is a major financial center, on par with any of those others I mentioned, and getting bigger. It is, after, private financing through private banks.

And as for the two UAE hijackers, weren't a heck of a lot more from Egypt and Saudi Arabia, our alleged allies? Nobody complains about Saudis controlling huge portions of our economy (if you believe Michael Moore, which should be taken at chubby, unshaven face value ;) ).

[blazedog]

I think if a nuclear device is found at a U.S. port it is way too late to do anything about it. All a terrorist has to do is attach a battery powered GPS to an atomic dirty bomb, along with a cell phone used as a wireless triggering device. The terrorist, sitting half way across the world, would then only have to watch the position of the ship on a computer to decide when to detonate the bomb using the cell phone just before the ship docks at the port.

Please don't flame me for publicly stating this. The terrorists already know this.

Our best way of stopping a nuclear device from entering this country is for us to have good enough intelligence overseas to keep the device from being loaded on a ship destined for the United States.


The danger is not in a bomb being smuggled into the country. The danger lies in nuclear material being smuggled into the country which is then used to create a so-called "dirty bomb," This is a very low tech bomb which contaminates a relatively small area but would be detonated strategically to create maximum kill and terror -- as well as of course propaganda value. You don't need fusion or fission or the kind of funding or technology needed for a bomb -- even nuclear waste will do as is is the contamination aspect rather than the nuclear explosion which would be the tool of a terrorist.

There is an enormous amount of nuclear material which is unaccounted for and obviously large quantities have reached the hands of those who shouldn't have it -- just another area in which the real security needs of the US and other countries is ignored but that's an aside.

[mbrogier]

This deal with Dubai Ports World does not give them "control of our ports." It does give them control over some, not all, of the terminals in our ports, not the ports themselves.

It has been claimed that the Dubai company was taking control of six major U.S. ports. There are 300 terminals at those ports. Dubai Ports World is going to handle nine of them." That's 9 of the terminals.

There is a difference between a port and a terminal.

Or at least this is my understanding of the facts as they begin to come forth out of the hoopla.
joyce


Do you know what the difference in a port and terminal is? Or are you just echoing what you've heard or read?

So they only get 9 points of entry in which the US would have to go through more red tape to inspect cargo. There would be more red tape because they could claim profiling, etc. That's still 9 too many. I don't care if a Canadian country wants to control our terminals, ports, waterways, etc. We should be doing it. (no offense to my wonderful CL Canadian friends--I was just making the point that it doesn't matter who it is.) I know this wouldn't have been an issue if the company hadn't been from Dubai but it's been brought up now. Port security is not that great anyway. So a ship can't get to a certain terminal because of security. It's still in our shores, and at certain ports it is way too far into populated areas. It would be too easy to unload small items at night that might be too difficult to do at sea because of ocean conditions even if the ship wasn't allowed into certain areas. I think we're way too lax. The security in small ports would probably shock most people.

[gertdog]

The sale of the company to a Dubai company does not bother me. The already-existing security problems bother me, and the "don't question it" attitude of the administration bothers me.

Just from reading the responses to this thread it's clear that most of us (the general "us") don't really know how operation of the ports works, so wouldn't it make sense to *explain* to the public what it means to have a Dubai company operate the ports, to *explain* why they're so sure it's a non-issue, and to head off all this posturing by the politicians? I think the White House really blew it with their initial lack of transparency- how could they think people wouldn't have questions, or, given Bush's current approval ratings, that people would buy their "trust me" response?

I respect the Dubai company for putting off the start of operations until the U.S. can conduct the security review that's been called for by Congress, especially since it's come to light that there wasn't a thorough review conducted in the first place. I understand the fear, but think our policy should be based on facts, not fear. If the Congressional review does not find any red flags, I'm fine with the deal going through.

If only Congress could get so excited about actually improving security!

[luvtocook]

I think that a major part of the story has been mostly overlooked. The company, Dubai Ports World, would also control the movement of military equipment on behalf of the U.S. Army through two Texas ports, Beaumont and Corpus Christi through 2010.

From a British publication, Lloyd's List, [P&O] has just renewed a contract with the United States Surface Deployment and Distribution Command to provide stevedoring [loading and unloading] of military equipment at these ports.

According to the journal Army Logistician “Almost 40 percent of the Army cargo deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom flows through these two ports".

Thus, the sale would give a country that has been a "key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia" direct control over substantial quantities of U.S. military equipment.

I have a real problem with this!

[jellyben]

Hmm, DH is a Coast Guard officer, works in International ship inspections. He and I have discussed this briefly and he doesn't have a problem with the Dubai company. He is worried how the added scrutiny will have people breathing heavy on the CG thus making his job harder(always looking out for number 1 that DH!!).

As Gumbeaux stated the best way to prevent stuff from getting into this country is to start overseas. Once it gets here it is extremely hard to find and already a threat just sitting in a container on a ship. I really should discuss this with him in depth-he would have some good insight.

[blazedog]

I respect the Dubai company for putting off the start of operations until the U.S. can conduct the security review that's been called for by Congress, especially since it's come to light that there wasn't a thorough review conducted in the first place. I understand the fear, but think our policy should be based on facts, not fear. If the Congressional review does not find any red flags, I'm fine with the deal going through.

If only Congress could get so excited about actually improving security!

Just for the record, the Dubai company didn't do this out of the goodness of their hearts. It was a carefully wrought political compromise which gave Dubya and his cohorts more time to extinguish the uproar as Dubya had backed himself into a corner by threatening a veto when the Republican leadership was leading the charge against the takeover.

Interesting similarity there - Dubya and Dubai. :D

[greysangel]

Actually one of the ports is Bayonne NJ and the Mayor has voiced lots of opposition.

[Kay Henderson]

Early this morning in one of my insomniac periods, I watched two House committees dealing with this issue on C-Span 1 & 2. Some interesting facts emerged.

1. Hong Kong, which has twice as many containers enter their ports as we do, inspects 100% of them.

2. The point was made that our government is working with foreign countries to inspect containers (certainly not all of them, but a beginning) at the point of embarkation. Dubai was the first country to sign on to this program.

3. On the other hand, another person pointed out that when Hamas publicly thanked Dubai for their financial support, their response was to bask in the glory of having done so.

4. Operations were carried out by a wholly-owned American subsidiary of the British P & O Shipping Company.

Here is how the proposed transaction is described by an article on Time.com:

"The transaction in question is the $6.8 billion acquisition by Dubai Ports World of the British P&O shipping company, to become the world's third largest port-operator. Among P&O's numerous worldwide operations are contracts to operate port facilities in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia."

For those interested, the entire article is here:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1161466,00.html

Kay

[gertdog]

Just for the record, the Dubai company didn't do this out of the goodness of their hearts. It was a carefully wrought political compromise which gave Dubya and his cohorts more time to extinguish the uproar as Dubya had backed himself into a corner by threatening a veto when the Republican leadership was leading the charge against the takeover.

I didn't necessarily think it was a non-business decision, I just think it was the smart (and right) thing to do, whatever the motive.