Outsourcing national security

Parent Cafe
121

<p>interesteddad,</p>

<p>Exactly! At least for me and those with whom I have discussed it, it has nothing to do with racism. It has to do with the things you listed. Secrecy and lack of trust in this administration. Personally, I would prefer that this job go to American companies, not any foreign companies and definitely not a state-owned company from a country with ties to al-Qaeda. How our country can invade one country, invoking the faintest (and mostly illusory) of ties to al-Qaeda, then turn our ports over to a country with quite clear ties to that group is beyond me.</p>

122

<p>If you think it is not in the national interest to have a powerful friend in the Middle East, you are hopelessly nearsighted.</p>

<p>And please show me any government ties to terrorists. The state of Virginia issued ID’s to many of the 9/11 hi-jackers–does that tie them to terrorism??</p>

123

<p>ID</p>

<p>You forgot to add:</p>

<p>(e) Bush is for it, then I’m against it.</p>

124

<p>these people are powerful? how? seriouslly, how? they have oil and banks and loan and invest in Bush’s family</p>

<p>And since we are so gung how on bringing democracy, well, how come its taken them years to have an election</p>

<p>and what about accountability, we had Saddam as an ally and look how well that worked</p>

<p>and do you not read the news about all the back door business tradings</p>

125

<p>For those who like a little intrigue and don’t like lobbyists, google Carol Browner, Tom Downey, Albright Group, and Bill Clinton.</p>

<p>Back door business tradings indeed.</p>

126

<p>and those had sooo much to do with national security, please, no comparrision, but nice try, look into this current issue in depth, it will surprise you</p>

<p>Lou Dobbs stated the FACTS today, just the facts and its pretty amazing</p>

127

<p><a href=“http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2002/18291.htm[/url]”>http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2002/18291.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is a federation of seven emirates established in 1971. None has any democratically elected institutions or political parties. Traditional rule in the emirates generally has been patriarchal, with political allegiance defined in terms of loyalty to the tribal leaders. There are no general elections, but citizens may express their concerns directly to their leaders through traditional mechanisms, such as the open majlis, or council.</p>

<p>The right to legal counsel was interpreted to provide that the accused was entitled to an attorney only after the police had completed their investigation. Thus, police could question accused persons sometimes for days or weeks, as in narcotics cases, without benefit of legal counsel. </p>

<p>Defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty. There were no jury trials. The number of judges sitting for a case depended on the type of crime alleged. Generally three judges sat for felony criminal cases and one judge sat in all other cases. All trials were public, except for national security cases and those deemed by the judge likely to harm public morality. Shari’a (Islamic law) courts (except in Dubai) frequently imposed flogging on Muslims found guilty of adultery, prostitution, and drug or alcohol abuse. In practice flogging was administered in accordance with Shari’a to prevent major or permanent injuries. Convictions in the Shari’a courts did not necessarily require the imposition of Shari’a penalties on non-Muslims, but such sentences were carried out in a few cases. According to AI, in 2001, at least 18 flogging sentences were passed in cases of adultery. </p>

<p>Family matters for Muslims are governed by Shari’a law and the local Shari’a courts. As such, Muslim women are forbidden to marry non-Muslims. However, in addition to marrying Muslim women, Muslim men are free to marry women “of the book,” that is Christian or Jewish women. </p>

<p>The Constitution provides for freedom of speech; however, the Government restricted this right in practice. Freedom of the press was restricted.</p>

128

<p>cont:</p>

<p>Journalists engaged in critical investigative reporting on government policy, the ruling families, national security, religion, and relations with neighboring states only if given at least implied permission to report on such matters. During the year, there were no such articles that received widespread attention. </p>

<p>The ban on criticism of the Government also restricts academic freedom</p>

<p>Unauthorized political organizations are prohibited. There were no political parties, independent human rights groups, or trade unions (see Sections 3, 4, and 6.a.). </p>

<p>Citizens do not have the right to change their government. There are no popular elections or democratic institutions, and citizens do not have the right to form political parties. Federal executive and legislative power is in the hands of the Federal Supreme Council, a body composed of the hereditary rulers of the seven emirates that elects from its members the country’s President and Vice-President. Decisions at the federal level generally were made by consensus among the rulers, their families, and other leading families. The seven emirate rulers, their extended families, and those persons and families to whom they were allied by historical ties, marriage, or common interest held political and economic power in their respective emirates. </p>

<p>Custom dictated that a husband could bar his wife, minor male and female children, and adult unmarried daughters from leaving the country, if only by taking custody of their passports (see Section 2.d.).</p>

<p>he law prohibits cohabitation by unmarried couples. The Government may imprison and deport noncitizen women if they bear children out of wedlock. In the event that a court sentences a woman to prison for such an offense, local authorities, at the request of the prisoner, may hold the newborn children in a special area within the confines of the prison or place them with a relative. In rare cases, children were held in other facilities until the mother’s release. In Dubai Emirate, unmarried pregnant women generally must marry the father of the child or repatriate to their home country. Otherwise, both parties would be subject to arrest for fornication.</p>

129

<p>. cont</p>

<p>Citizen children were required to attend school–segregated by gender–through the sixth grade, the last grade of primary education, when children could be as young as 10 or 11 years old. However, compulsory education was not enforced, and some children, both girls and boys, did not attend school. </p>

<p>Citizen children were required to attend school–segregated by gender–through the sixth grade, the last grade of primary education, when children could be as young as 10 or 11 years old. However, compulsory education was not enforced, and some children, both girls and boys, did not attend school. </p>

<p>Approximately 98 percent of the private sector workforce consisted of foreigners. Most foreign workers did not earn the salary required to obtain residency permits for their families. The required monthly minimum salary to permit accompanying families was $1,090 (3,924 dirhams) or $817 (2,941 dirhams), when a housing allowance is provided. </p>

<p>There were reports of abuse of domestic workers by their employers. Allegations included excessive work hours, nonpayment of wages, and verbal, physical, and sexual abuse. There was no further information available on cases in 2001 of attempted suicide and rape (see Section 5).</p>

130

<p><a href=“http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?id=300[/url]”>http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?id=300&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

131

<p>just some facts:</p>

<p>CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): The oil-rich United Arab Emirates is a major investor in The Carlyle Group, the private equity investment firm where President Bush’s father once served as senior adviser and is a who’s who of former high-level government officials. Just last year, Dubai International Capital, a government-backed buyout firm, invested in an $8 billion Carlyle fund. </p>

<p>Another family connection, the president’s brother, Neil Bush, has reportedly received funding for his educational software company from the UAE investors. A call to his company was not returned. </p>

<p>Then there is the cabinet connection. Treasury Secretary John Snow was chairman of railroad company CSX/. After he left the company for the White House, CSX sold its international port operations to Dubai Ports World for more than a billion dollars. </p>

<p>In Connecticut today, Snow told reporters he had no knowledge of that CSX sale. “I learned of this transaction probably the same way members of the Senate did, by reading about it in the newspapers.”</p>

<p>Another administration connection, President Bush chose a Dubai Ports World executive to head the U.S. Maritime Administration. David Sanborn, the former director of Dubai Ports’ European and Latin American operations, he was tapped just last month to lead the agency that oversees U.S. port operations."</p>

132

<p>The Carlyle Group is an excellent firm (in spite of all the weird books written about it); with 3,000 individual and institutional investors I’m not surprised Dubai International Capital is one of those investors - that’s a very smart move on their part. And just in case you missed it? bin Laden’s family is a client too - which makes perfect sense, given the level of net worth individual that firm accepts as a client. I think the barrier to entry was just lowered to something like $300,000 per initial investment. </p>

<p>As far as CSX, Dubai regularly wins international awards (from independent world bodies) for excellence in ports operation, so that’s a very smart transaction too. </p>

<p>As far as UAE’s government, we’ve always known this is how their country operates. Which actually provides a stronger argument in favor of the ports deal, not against. Again, the best way to influence a society or at least create an environment where influence might be possible is by demonstrating the opportunities available in a free and democratic society. </p>

<p>CGM, do you actually ever read anything anyone else posts? Or, do you just hurry, rush to the next white empty box to hurry up and type something that will be anti-Bush? Because some people here have offered very sound, well documented reasons and excellent business cases related to the ports deal but you do not appear to have noticed any of those posts.</p>

133

<p>Susantm, countries - especially modern, progressive countries - aren’t homogenous any more, and they haven’t been, not for a very, very long time. The U.S. can be said to have “ties” to the 9/11 hijackers too, given that we trained them to fly those planes, opened back accounts for them, leased apartments to them, etc. </p>

<p>With the possible exception of individual contributors and micro-businesses, I can think of very few businesses that operate with no exchange with foreign countries - both out of desire, and necessity. At any port in the country you’re going to find multiple foreign countries with various business investments and obligations, and, of course, in mid to larger corporations you’re going to find the exact same thing. The private equity firm Carlyle Group has 3,000 investors, and they’re from something like 90+ countries, and on all continents. That’s why the firm has so many offices in different countries - it has to, to meet client demand. </p>

<p>And, many of those countries have laws, practices, cultures, etc. that are very different - even inimical - to our own. But that certainly doesn’t mean that we don’t do business - if anything, it means we need to have more dialog than ever before. The UAE is home to billions; 11 persons out of those billions flew planes into the WTC. That doesn’t rise to cause to shun that region of the world. </p>

<p>And there are 240 countries in the world, all with different governments, cultures, etc. We trade with 230 of them. It’s important we get along with them, and build strong relationships, and one of the very best ways to do that is through the common language of trade.</p>

134

<p>Beyond the 240+ countries that are actually on the planet? Some years ago, a man wanted to be king of something, but, he couldn’t be a real king, having no ties to royalty, and no legitimate, recognized country would allow him to rule. So he solved the problem, and simply invented a country that exists no where except on the internet.</p>

<p>To be fair, I think he did try to claim a piece of rock as his home country, but, some exploration showed that he was actually targeting a coral reef that was something like ten miles under water. </p>

<p>This might be really funny if he’d stopped there, but, he didn’t, he somehow managed to get diplomatic passports issued in the name of the new cyber-country, and, from there, people who got the passports then used them to open bank accounts. Then they used the bank accounts to launder money and fund terrorist activities. </p>

<p>I know you think I’m making this up, but, I swear I’m not, just google the Dominion of Melchizidek (sp?); thousands of investors lost their money, and all the money went to terrorist cells, and financial intel units in multiple countries have been powerless trying to stop the flow of cash - after all, what policeman do you send into cyberspace? </p>

<p>There are other virtual countries too, and all of them very, very difficult for law enforcement to stop, because, obviously, they operate in the shadows of the internet and far beyond the reach of any law. </p>

<p>I’m a whole lot more terrified of cyber-terrorists intent on corrupting the integrity of the financial system, who cannot be reached or touched, than I am of a real, corporal country who has too much to lose to risk supporting terrorism. </p>

<p>Trying to put an end to Melchizidek - and similar cyber-countries - has involved major efforts from federal law enforcement from at least 45 countries, and those are just the actions I happen to know about, or remember. </p>

<p>Given this, and other emerging cyber-terrorism, we should probably make really, really good friends with as many of the 240 corporal countries as possible, and especially UAE. As far as I know, Melchizidek still operates.</p>

135

<p>So they are “efficient” so what? </p>

<p>And we have been lied to about this transaction, yet we are supposed to TRUST…</p>

<p>And how do we know anything we have been told by the reports to support the deal are true, if we haven’t been told the truth…do you really think that a man who was president of a company did not know it was sold? that he gets two million dollars a year from the company but he didn’t know</p>

<p>please give me a break, if these people had NO CLUE of the transaction yet support it to the point of a veto, we are to trust them</p>

<p>I think not</p>

136

<p>First you complain of Bush appointing people with out experience and when he does it’s bad too.</p>

<p>Bill Clinton speaks very highly of the UAE. He’s a lot smarter and better informed than you.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.itp.net/business/news/details.php?id=18919&ca%20tegory=arabianbusiness[/url]”>http://www.itp.net/business/news/details.php?id=18919&ca%20tegory=arabianbusiness&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

137

<p>Jimmy Carter spoke very highly of UAE as well, and was extremely complimentary of Dubai in particular, mentioning that he has traveled to and spent time in that country on multiple occassions.</p>

138

<p>SO what? Its seems to be a safe country. With 98% of its workers fromother places.</p>

<p>THat does not really mean anything. Bush loved Saddam. So did Rumsfield. Good judgement there I guess.</p>

<p>Bill Clinton speak highly of the country. So what again? So know you LIKE what CLinton says when its convienent for you. I like Japan. Would I want them running my ports. Nope. I like France. WOuld I want them running my ports. Nope. I like Brazil. So liking a country does not mean they should run our ports.</p>

139

<p>So since Bush and Rumsfiled LOVED Saddam, we should have had him run our ports back then I guess. Yep, these guys have had great judgement and are so forthright and trustworthy.</p>

<p>Guess Bush’s brother Neil getting money from them is irrelvants. Andthe timing of Dole getting a job with Dubai is coincedence, and the man in charge of Martime company getting bought recently is just coincedence, and that fact that the Carlyle group got 8BILLION from them recently is just coincendence and the fact that they have allowed nucluer material through their ports to the enemy is just, well, okay with you all</p>

<p>Fine, ignore whats there and deny that at least questions should be asked and if the President and all his close people had no clue this was happening to our ports, 21 so far, well, sure, so much for national security</p>

140

<p>I do think the idea of the UAE owning the ports is a redherring providing cover for all sorts of nonsensical ideas, though I think some of the fine print of this deal, such as not requiring records to be kept on U.S. soil, are out of bounds and just one more instance of the Bush administration doing anything for business. There’s nothing more wrong about the UAE owning ports than there is about the Chinese…and I think the latter now owns Long Beach, the biggest U.S. port.</p>

<p>However, a friend of mine put together some thoughts on how this is all playing out. Avoiding duplication of effort, quoted and edited by permission:

</p>