A Cygnus Business Media Website            








 

These Are Private Forums for Law Enforcement. We Reserve the Right to Remove Non-LEO Members, Anti-LE or Inappropriate Posts and Users Without Warning.

This Forum
Sponsored by










Go Back   Police Forums & Law Enforcement Forums @ Officer.com > Public Forums > General Law Enforcement Topics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-24-2006, 03:18 AM   #1
FedCop
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 576
U.S. to hand over ports to Middle Eastern Company

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Tuesday defended a deal that would let a United Arab Emirates-based company run some key U.S. seaports, telling reporters that he would veto any bill to hold up the agreement.

Bush, who has yet to veto a bill during his administration, warned that the United States is sending "mixed signals" by attacking a Middle Eastern company after the ports were run by a British firm for several years.

Lawmakers who have called for the deal to be blocked need to "step up and explain why a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard," he said.

Among the lawmakers from both parties threatening to hold up the deal is Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. (Watch how both parties are teaming up against Bush -- 1:14)

"If the administration cannot delay the process, I plan on introducing legislation to ensure that the deal is placed on hold until this decision gets a more thorough review," Frist, a Tennessee Republican, said.

The administration has faced criticism this week over its decision to let a subsidiary of UAE government-controlled maritime management firm Dubai Ports World run ports in New York and New Jersey; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Baltimore, Maryland; Miami, Florida; and New Orleans, Louisiana. (See where the ports are)

Critics say the takeover raises security concerns, noting that two of the hijackers in the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington came from the UAE and that the hijackers drew funds from bank accounts in Dubai, the financial center of the Persian Gulf.

But a port security expert said security fears are based on "bigotry" against Arabs.

"This whole notion that Dubai is going to control or set standards for U.S. ports is a canard," said Kim Petersen, head of SeaSecure, a U.S.-based maritime security company, and executive director of the Maritime Security Council, which represents 70 percent of the world's ocean shipping.

The agreement is scheduled to take effect March 2. It was approved by the federal Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, which includes representatives of the FBI, Pentagon and Treasury, Commerce and Homeland Security departments.

Dubai Ports World recently acquired the British-based firm that currently directs commercial operations at those ports, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation. The takeover by Dubai Ports World means that it will be in charge of those operations.

"I don't understand why it's OK for a British company to operate our ports but not a company from the Middle East when we've already determined security is not an issue," Bush told reporters aboard Air Force One after Frist urged the administration to block the deal.

The Bush administration argues the deal was properly approved and poses no security threat. Administration officials are scheduled to discuss the sale Thursday with the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the committee's chairman, Sen. John Warner, R-Virginia. (Watch what role the UAE plays in the war on terror -- 1:57)

"Nothing in this acquisition has anything to do with the responsibility for security in American ports," State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said. "That remains very firmly in the hands of the Department of Homeland Security. What we're talking about is the management of some port operations."

Of the facilities to be sold, the port in New York and New Jersey is the largest, handling about 4.5 million container units in 2004 and is among the nation's top 10 in terms of containers handled, according to the American Association of Port Authorities.

Miami is the next largest port with about 1 million container units, and Baltimore handled about 558,000 in 2004, the AAPA said.

Ted Bilkey, chief operating officer of Dubai Ports World, and other senior executives are in the United States to brief congressional, government and other officials.

"We followed U.S. law and actually approached the U.S. government for approval of our security arrangement weeks prior to the formal review," Bilkey said. "We will continue to work with the U.S. government in maintaining the highest standards of security at U.S. ports, and will fully cooperate in putting into place whatever is necessary to protect the terminals."

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, has called for hearings and, "in the meantime, Congress must put an immediate halt to this deal that the administration hastily approved in secret without input from the Congress or state officials."

Rep. Peter King, a Republican from New York and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, and Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, already introduced a bill to put the deal on hold. Democratic Senators Bob Menendez of New Jersey and Hillary Clinton of New York are sponsoring a bill that would block the sale of U.S. port operations to foreign governments.

"My office today has received more phone calls on this than any issue in the 14 years I've been in the United States Congress, and every one of them is in support of what Senator Schumer and I are doing," King said.

Ereli said Homeland Security officials have had good relations with Dubai Ports World, and he said the United States has a "strong and effective partnership" with the UAE "from a counterterrorism point of view."

But Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican and the chairwoman of the Senate Government Affairs and Homeland Security Committee, said that "although the UAE is an ally in the war on terrorism, the country has historically been used as a base of terrorist operations and financing," she said.


Last edited by FedCop : 02-24-2006 at 03:29 AM.
FedCop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2006, 03:28 AM   #2
FedCop
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by FedCop
But a port security expert said security fears are based on "bigotry" against Arabs.


Nope, it is based up "bigotry" of terrorist who happen to be Arabs!

Did we hand over sensitive security issues to the Japanese in WWII? Hell no, we didn't even allow the enemy to walk amongst us. What the hell is wrong with detention camps!

This G-D touchy feely stuff isn't going to feely so good when they nuke us because we wanted to be PC and trust them! This contract was given to a British company, which is BS too, but it should be void if transfered or sold!
FedCop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2006, 03:53 AM   #3
FedCop
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 576
bold text taken in part from a CBS 60 minutes transcript:

[b]We can no longer ignore the worst-case scenario of a nuclear terrorist attack on an American city. Osama bin Laden has made it clear he wants to obtain nuclear weapons and use them against us.

The 9/11 Commission considers such an attack the No. 1 threat today, not because it
FedCop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2006, 06:13 AM   #4
Alesha
Forum Member
 
Alesha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Oregon
Posts: 62
Thumbs down

[quote=FedCop]bold text taken in part from a CBS 60 minutes transcript:

[b]We can no longer ignore the worst-case scenario of a nuclear terrorist attack on an American city. Osama bin Laden has made it clear he wants to obtain nuclear weapons and use them against us.

The 9/11 Commission considers such an attack the No. 1 threat today, not because it
__________________
"To accomplish great things, we must not only act, but also dream, not only plan, but also believe."
Alesha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2006, 09:59 AM   #5
RedRaider911
Forum Member
 
RedRaider911's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Tejas
Posts: 522
Honestly this is a none issue. This company would only provide the normal operations of a port. Security would still fall to port police, ICE, and the other fed agencies that are currently responsible for port security. The way in which cargo is inspected would constinue, etc.
Just because a company is owned by arabs does not mean that every employee will be arab as well. It just means the headquarters of the company is in an arab company. Big deal. This is no different then any foriegn company that happens to have operations within the US.
And, yes, I do believe that the majority of the reaction to this is based on bigotry, and racisim. But thats just my opinion on the matter.
RedRaider911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2006, 10:11 AM   #6
NavyCop
Forum Member
 
NavyCop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 287
deleted due to repost.
NavyCop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2006, 10:11 AM   #7
NavyCop
Forum Member
 
NavyCop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by FedCop
Hell no, we didn't even allow the enemy to walk amongst us. What the hell is wrong with detention camps!

You can't be serious. You really need to be told what is wrong with detention camps? Either you are a racist or you're ignorant of history and what really happened.
NavyCop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2006, 12:20 PM   #8
rmedon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by FedCop
Ted Bilkey, chief operating officer of Dubai Ports World, and other senior executives are in the United States to brief congressional, government and other officials.

"We followed U.S. law and actually approached the U.S. government for approval of our security arrangement weeks prior to the formal review," Bilkey said. "We will continue to work with the U.S. government in maintaining the highest standards of security at U.S. ports, and will fully cooperate in putting into place whatever is necessary to protect the terminals."

:
But Dubai Ports World would not have any part in the ports' security? Huh.
What are we thinking?
rmedon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2006, 01:45 PM   #9
Firebug
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New Mexico, USA
Posts: 186
What you all really should be angry with is how little port security there ever was. The reality is it no better now then it was before 9/11. All the security arrangements that the port manangement company has is over what contract security guards are going to be at the gates. They don't effect any government security arrangements which don't amount to much anyway.

FB
Firebug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2006, 02:28 PM   #10
nacorbier
Visiting Commando Leader
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 598
Big question is, how much presence is there by USCG, Federal Protective Service, and other federal LE agencies at these ports? I worked on a port of entry contract once, including developing the security plan.

The biggest thing the city was concerned with was that their "port security officers" would make more money than the contract guards, and that they would be "over them." Oh, and that they didn't have to wear the contract guard uniform - because the port officers liked BDUs.

We'd see a USCG inspection team about once a month. They'd ride up in a GSA plated truck. THEY were at least trying. (We almost shot one who tried to ram the gate.) Never saw US Customs, nor FPS or ICE (Border Entry Point).

I've seen more USCG inspection at a petrochemical refinery and distribution point.
nacorbier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2006, 03:23 PM   #11
lazycop
Vigilante
 
lazycop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: TN
Posts: 414
Dubai Ports World seems to be a pretty hard core company. Will probably do a better job managing the ports than anyone else. It's what they do.





Maybe we should'nt let americans run flight training schools since the terrorists were trained at US run schools. Makes as much sense.
lazycop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2006, 03:38 PM   #12
pvtbuddie
Forum Member
 
pvtbuddie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: El Paso
Posts: 1,654
From what I could find, the UAE is our friend; I'm sure some of it's citizens are not.

The UK, as a modern and free country, has to be nicer to suspected moles.

Most of us would like to have detailed for us: 1. The security checks made before this was OKed 2. the security policies of this company.

It should have been assumed that we would be doubly concerned about this.
pvtbuddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2006, 04:56 PM   #13
nitromt
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NJ
Posts: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedRaider911
Honestly this is a none issue. This company would only provide the normal operations of a port. Security would still fall to port police, ICE, and the other fed agencies that are currently responsible for port security. The way in which cargo is inspected would constinue, etc.
Just because a company is owned by arabs does not mean that every employee will be arab as well. It just means the headquarters of the company is in an arab company. Big deal. This is no different then any foriegn company that happens to have operations within the US.
And, yes, I do believe that the majority of the reaction to this is based on bigotry, and racisim. But thats just my opinion on the matter.
I agree. But even if a majority of the employees are Arab, what are you suggesting? Unless someone can find a credible reason, not just a blanket racist preference, that relates to terrorism, then denying Dubai Ports is just a racist move.

Security at these ports would not be any different if a non-Arab company had purchased the ports according to the commissions that are set up to assess homeland security.
nitromt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2006, 09:52 PM   #14
RedRaider911
Forum Member
 
RedRaider911's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Tejas
Posts: 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by nitromt
I agree. But even if a majority of the employees are Arab, what are you suggesting? Unless someone can find a credible reason, not just a blanket racist preference, that relates to terrorism, then denying Dubai Ports is just a racist move.

Security at these ports would not be any different if a non-Arab company had purchased the ports according to the commissions that are set up to assess homeland security.
I wasn't suggesting anything. Reading that again I see how it can be read as you did. Sorry for the confusion. I was simply saying that the location of a company who owns the port operations does not dictate the type of person who works there. I used the arab example since everyone seems to be equating arab with terrorist.
RedRaider911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2006, 10:04 PM   #15
rich75
Forum Member
 
rich75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: FL
Posts: 136
[quote=FedCop]

Nope, it is based up "bigotry" of terrorist who happen to be Arabs!

I have to disagree with you on saying that terrorist are Arab; some are American.
rich75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2006, 10:17 PM   #16
hounddog
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: michigan
Posts: 775
[quote=rich75]
Quote:
Originally Posted by rich75
I have to disagree with you on saying that terrorist are Arab; some are American.
The vast majority of terrorists in the world are Arab. It is a fact, no matter how you wish to argue that.
hounddog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2006, 10:22 PM   #17
rich75
Forum Member
 
rich75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: FL
Posts: 136
[quote=hounddog]
Quote:
Originally Posted by rich75

The vast majority of terrorists in the world are Arab. It is a fact, no matter how you wish to argue that.
The vast majority are Muslim. Not going to argue it but we can't just look at Arabs as a threat b/c if we do that then we coupld possibly be letting our gaurd down.
rich75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2006, 11:01 PM   #18
tony.o
Forum Member
 
tony.o's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: TN
Posts: 2,658
Some of you need to go look the word racism up. No one dislikes individuals because they are of arab decent, it's their culture, and I don't blame people for not wanting those people here in large numbers.
tony.o is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2006, 11:12 PM   #19
rich75
Forum Member
 
rich75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: FL
Posts: 136
America has become more racist since 9/11 and the media isn't helping the situation.
rich75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2006, 07:23 PM   #20
rmedon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 32
I don't like the idea of any other country controlling US ports.
rmedon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2006, 08:18 PM   #21
cst.sb
Forum Member
 
cst.sb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by rich75
The vast majority are Muslim.
How can you say that about the religion of peace!!! Well, anyway it's all in the Koran
cst.sb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2006, 09:25 PM   #22
rich75
Forum Member
 
rich75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: FL
Posts: 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by cst.sb
How can you say that about the religion of peace!!! Well, anyway it's all in the Koran
LoL, thats a good video.
rich75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2006, 09:34 PM   #23
cst.sb
Forum Member
 
cst.sb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by rich75
LoL, thats a good video.
The first time I watched in I laughed, now I just cry!!!
cst.sb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2006, 10:55 PM   #24
BrickCop
He who speaks Truth
 
BrickCop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Between Canada and Mexico
Posts: 4,069
Quote:
Originally Posted by rich75
America has become more racist since 9/11 and the media isn't helping the situation.

Become more Racist or more intelligent?

America was attacked on 9/11 by Muslim Terrorists The UAE does not recognize Israel, you will not be allowed in the UAE if your passpaort reflects that you've been to Israel. The 9/11 report shows a link to Al-Q funding and at least one major bank institution in the UAE...

The US (echoing the wise words of Winston Churchill) does not have allies, only interests. Saudi Arabia is a huge "ally" but all but two of the 9/11 Terrorists were Saudis. I would not want them or the UAE to have ANYTHING to do with our National (port) Security. If there is even a possibility of the Al-Q infiltrating the company it is NOT worth the risk.

The lives and security of the US people should be given priority over a backwards Muslim country with an inability or unwillingness to weed out the fanatics. I frankly do not trust them with any info relative to the inner workings of US ports. Granted they could probably find out what they want over the net but I don't think we should make it easier for potential Muslim Terrorists.

Some call it racism I call it common sense. If the UAE cannot understand our concerns well, too bad- so sad. We shouldn't risk our safety to give them a hug.
__________________
Disclaimer: The writer does not represent any organization, employer, entity or other individual. The first amendment protected views/commentary/opinions/satire expressed are those only of the writer. In the case of a sarcastic, facetious, nonsensical, stirring-the-pot, controversial or devil's advocate-type post, the views expressed may not even reflect those of the writer.
BrickCop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2006, 12:31 AM   #25
nitromt
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NJ
Posts: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrickCop
Become more Racist or more intelligent?

America was attacked on 9/11 by Muslim Terrorists The UAE does not recognize Israel, you will not be allowed in the UAE if your passpaort reflects that you've been to Israel. The 9/11 report shows a link to Al-Q funding and at least one major bank institution in the UAE...

The US (echoing the wise words of Winston Churchill) does not have allies, only interests. Saudi Arabia is a huge "ally" but all but two of the 9/11 Terrorists were Saudis. I would not want them or the UAE to have ANYTHING to do with our National (port) Security. If there is even a possibility of the Al-Q infiltrating the company it is NOT worth the risk.

The lives and security of the US people should be given priority over a backwards Muslim country with an inability or unwillingness to weed out the fanatics. I frankly do not trust them with any info relative to the inner workings of US ports. Granted they could probably find out what they want over the net but I don't think we should make it easier for potential Muslim Terrorists.

Some call it racism I call it common sense. If the UAE cannot understand our concerns well, too bad- so sad. We shouldn't risk our safety to give them a hug.
In your post, you have given no shred of evidence that UAE company is anymore dangerous than a non-Middle Eastern company operating the ports. Apparently, people who are familiar with port security such as many federal agencies believe it is safe to do so. Are you saying that they are incorrect and you are right? Based on what such evidence?
nitromt is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1996-2005, Officer.com, Cygnus Business Media - Public Safety Interactive