<p>Yes and Tim McVeigh was from what, Oklahoma–does that place all people from there on a do not do business with list? The extremists come from many places and we need to watch for them at every possible point of entry. I would screen every employee of the port operating firm with the utmost care–and that’s it. One of the frequent posters here works in the UAE-wish he would comment.</p>
<p>Mini, you are being silly.</p>
<p>Yes and Walmart takes care of its people so well, they have to go on medicare to take care of the children</p>
<p>How much of our national debt is owned by foriegn countries, ie China who, if they called it in, would cause chaos here</p>
<p>So much for patriatism, and national security</p>
<p>Go ahead, take away my moms tweezers at the airport and check out the books people look at in the library, but don’t worry that China owns alot of America</p>
<p>W aides’ biz ties to Arab firm </p>
<p>BY MICHAEL McAULIFF
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU </p>
<p>Breaking news update: Bush shrugs off objections to port deal</p>
<p>WASHINGTON - The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House.</p>
<p>One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose agency heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan’s cruise ship terminal and Newark’s container port.</p>
<p>Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush’s cabinet.</p>
<p>The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World’s European and Latin American operations and was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration."</p>
<p>There are 230 countries exporting goods that are loaded onto container ships headed to U.S. ports; these container ships stop at literally hundreds of foreign ports in various trade lanes throughout the chain of commerce before ever arriving at a U.S. port. Added to that, there are hundreds of air cargo imports - this is typically the smaller, more expensive cargo such as computer wafers, diamonds and precious stones, etc. </p>
<p>THAT’s where the security focus needs to be, and has been, since 9/11 and before.</p>
<p>It’s not surprising that some members of congress from both sides of the aisle are making noise. Not even three years ago, Senator Collins and Senator Leiberman actually wrote a letter to Asa Hutchinson (undersecretary of CBP, reporting to Tom Ridge) asking that they force foreign exporters to publish their purchase orders in advance of maritime shipments, instead of the shippers export declaration and bill of lading. That was literally the dumbest suggestion ever made in the international trade world, given the competitive intelligence and security implications. Not to mention that such a dumb move would have impacted technology in over 30 domestic agencies.</p>
<p>Fortunately, a few members of private industry stepped in and corrected this midguided, uninformed and disastrous idea. </p>
<p>As to UAE, we can learn a LOT from their business methodology and economic development. Dubai offers truly unprecedented, enviable economic and social accomplishments, and it will be very interesting to watch that country’s progress over the next several years.</p>
<p>Have I had my head in the sand? I watch the news every day and read the newspaper and today was the first day I saw reports of this deal. Was this being kept a secret, or did I in fact just not notice previous news about it?</p>
<p>I think there is more coverage now because some probably thought it just couldn’t be really happening!
Its a done deal now according to the prez
but I think, how you say… the caca is hitting the fan-
It is not going to go over well.
<a href=“http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/jan-june06/ports_2-21.html[/url]”>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/jan-june06/ports_2-21.html</a></p>
<p>Full disclosure- I don’t like the deal. That said, why are those of you who constantly bark at President Bush so angry about this? We all know that you don’t like the Pres, but we also know that you think that the whole “war on terror” stuff is a bunch of ****.</p>
<p>So is this just another partisan display or are you really concerned about our nation’s security?</p>
<p>latetoschool, you are joking right? I am so glad the UAE is progressing but we are not talking about a real socially progressive place. Maybe against Kuwait. Come on!</p>
<p>“Mini, you are being silly.”</p>
<p>Why couldn’t we purchase a foreign mercenary army? It worked for the British in India for a century. Cheaper, and likely better, too.</p>
<p>I don’t think anyone who doesn’t think that we shouldn’t be careful about who we let in our borders, who we give jobs to, who we give money to
We aren’t too hip on racial profiling but acknowledge that a certain amount of profiling may be more time/cost effective than requiring elderly grandparents with walkers to be strip searched.
I don’t believe in outsourcing anything- we need our jobs for our citizens. I don’t beleive in selling off bits and pieces of US to other countries, I know it is already being done and has been done for decades, but it doesn’t mean we should accelerate that process</p>
<p>I meant to say I don’t * know * anyone</p>
<p>I remember the ruckus over the Unocal/China deal. Bush stopped that deal because the oil company would be owned by a foreign government and that would be a risk to our national security. He was right then.
Our port management should not be in the hands of a foreign government.
When push comes to shove, will a foreign government act in our best interest, or in their own? Is this president acting in our best interest by threatening to veto any bill that proposes to block this deal? He hasn’t used a veto yet. Why is this so **** important, I’d love to know?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The issue is a loss of confidence in the Bush administration’s effectiveness. To properly evaluate a deal like this require accurate intelligence and evaluation of the business community ties to terrorist groups within our allegedly allies such as Saudi Arabi and UAE. Because our intelligence gathering and analysis has been so flawed and because executive branch management of relations in the Middle East has been so ineffective, it is only natural to question whether anyone is minding the store.</p>
<p>For me, big red flags go up when Bush starts stonewalling any consideration of the issue. Why is he doing the bidding for UAE company? Why should a consideration of the issue be a problem to him?</p>
<p>It’s similar to my feelings on the NSA spying issue. I listen to the Attorney General dance his way through Senate hearings and try to come up with a plausible explanation. Why would he refuse to answer the questions? My antenna go up. What is the administration hiding this time?</p>
<p>The loss of credibility is self-inflicted. I mean…how many times do we have to watch Bush say, “You’re doing a great job, Brownie” when it is perfectly obvious that Brownie wasn’t doing a great job.</p>
<p>"Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush’s cabinet.</p>
<p>The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World’s European and Latin American operations and was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration."</p>
<p>I’d be interested in knowing the financial interests these two gentlemen have in DP World. Does Snow still have stock options in CSX, which he ran? Does Sanborn still have financial interest in DP World? It would be logical for them to still have financial interest in the company. This company is too close to the power players in the administration for the deal to have been merely a happy accident. No wonder there was so much secrecy.</p>
<p>I’d urge everyone to look at the bigger picture of how maritime trade actually happens, and the various points of potential terrorist infiltration along the way, long before any ship ever even enters U.S. waters, let alone approaches a U.S. port. </p>
<p>Consider first the 230+ countries exporting goods to the U.S. (as well as other destinations). Let’s say Proctor & Gamble, WalMart, or just a small local shop wants to import something. They arrange to buy the product from a vendor in one of the 230+ countries. That vendor MUST file a shipper’s export declaration, plus a master manifest report, plus a bill of lading. These documents collectively yield over 1,000 points of data, which include but are not limited to the actual container number, importer and exporter name and address, weight of goods, piece count, letter of credit numbers, invoice numbers, any marks or written information on the outside of any boxes, etc. </p>
<p>Under the 1930 trade act, this information is available for purchase by any qualified member of the press or their designates. As an aside, several U.S. companies buy this data now, including Journal of Commerce, as well as several D.C. based law firms where there is an international trade practice. </p>
<p>Post 9/11, these documents are required to be submitted to the U.S. goverment BEFORE a container ship leaves a U.S. port. (This has caused significant grief with foreign suppliers of perishable goods, because it means they must file their paperwork very early, often when the produce is still in the ground etc.)</p>
<p>Literally dozens of government agencies - including CBP/DHS, the Office of Naval Intelligence, and numerous others receive this data in advance, and it’s aggressively combed for anomolies. For example, has a new importer emerged - someone who has never imported a particular product before? Or, does a shipment of feather pillows document a weight that is more appropriate for steel coil?</p>
<p>Added to that, the largest container shipping companies in the world that transport and deliver goods to U.S. ports are owned and operated in foreign companies: Maersk-Sealand, Hanjin, P & O Nedlloyd, China Ocean Shipping, Iran Shipping Lines, numerous others are all owned in UK, China, UAE, and several other foreign countries. </p>
<p>A simple shipment of goods destined for WalMart will probably be loaded into a container that is actually owned by an Asian company, leased by a UK company, placed onto a ship owned by a UAE company, staffed with crew from who even knows how many foreign countries. It may depart from a country of origin in, say, Asia, and it may stop at multiple foreign ports, and exchange containers and crew at any point along the way, long before ever reaching whichever one of the U.S. ports where it’s scheduled to unload. </p>
<p>And that doesn’t even include all of the secondaries along the way - the NVOCCs, Vessel Operating Common Carriers, etc. </p>
<p>All throughout this chain of commerce one can assume multiple opportunities for terrorist approach or security compromise. It hasn’t happened yet, because of all the laws, security, intel, and global cooperation that happens along the way. </p>
<p>Having UAE in charge of the mere operations of six of 100+ U.S. ports will have literally no compromise to national security, or even have any real ability to impact it. The real opportunity to breach maritime security is at any one of the points anywhere in the chain of commerce - by the time a container ship approaches a U.S. port, it’s a bit too late.</p>
<p>Overseas, I’m completely serious. I’d encouraged everyone who insists on the opinion that this is a bad deal to do some research on Dubai, especially that country’s economic strategy and achievements. It’s absolutely fascinating what’s being accomplished in that country, and we can benefit greatly from strong relations with UAE. We can learn a lot from them; they can learn from us as well. It is going to be very interesting to see how it all plays out, especially when the oil runs out in 25 years or so. </p>
<p>As to their social progression, likely the best possible way to influence a lagging society is by showing them by example the incredible positive impact of a free, open, democratic society.</p>
<p>Browninfall–glad to hear you are against this. Many of the usual suspects are keeping quiet.</p>
<p>As for not being against the “war on Terrorism” until now, I guess I think that’s a silly characterization. I don’t believe you can “war” on a concept, and I think many of the things that are being done under that banner by this administration are plainly unConstitutional and ineffectual, but yes, I do believe that real measures that plainly have to do with real security are important–who objects to airplane security measures, for instance?</p>
<p>I think there is a clear definable difference between taking focused, transparent measures to prevent the materials of terrorist force from moving across our borders, as opposed to a globalized, mostly hidden list of actions such as nontransparent, non-overseen wiretaps; secret overseas prisons; torture; or war against entire countries, whose ties to terrorism were manufactured by us.</p>
<p>I’m not sure I qualify as a “usual suspect”, but the reason I haven’t said anything about this yet is that I still don’t have all of the details. I see positives and negatives on both sides of the argument. This has the potential to be a non-partisan discussion (note the number of Republicans lining up on both sides of this), but it seems that all of the usual suspects of the CC left have lined up in knee jerk reaction against this. Perhaps it is very obvious to them that this is bad, but perhaps this is yet another instance of “if Bush says yes, I say no.” I suspect the latter is the case.</p>
<p>As a comparative example, concern over moneylaundering as a means of terrorist financing has been the foundation of new financial market space law, and new law enforcement post 9/11. There are all sorts of regs and laws that banking institutions are supposed to follow. </p>
<p>Within the last six months, to make a point, and to publish the results of the exercise, a business associate of mine, a non-U.S. citizen (and very obviously foreign), visited something like 15 banks in major cities, and, using a combination of expired foreign identification, false documents, and in one or two cases no government documents at all, easily opened bank accounts and began multiple transactions. </p>
<p>He deliberately engaged in behavior - and related transactions - that banks are supposed to recognize, prevent, and report to authorities as suspected terrorist financing activity, and yet he wasn’t stopped, or even offered any serious resistance, anywhere along the way in any of the banks. And these are American owned and headquarted banks, managed and staffed by Americans.</p>
<p>It’s hard to worry about six ports operated by a foreign company; I’m probably a bit more concerned about the other 90+ ports in the U.S. that may be staffed by complacent American citizens.</p>
<p>“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 [British] company,” Bush told reporters.</p>
<p>Mmmm, I can’t imagine.!?!</p>