Dubai Ports World (DPW)

[Sean Osborne]

Yes, word is that DHS has approved a company from the UAE to oversee US port security.



The UAE's DP World will oversee significant operations of ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

The UAE was the chief financial link for the 9/11 terrorists with funds from the emirates banks specifically bankrolling Usama bin Laden's cell to the tune 0f $100,000 in the five months preceeding 9/11. One of UBL's hijacking pilots, Marwan al-Shehhi, was a UAE citizen, and it was the site for much of the tactical planning of the operation.

[Aplomb]

Even democrats are against this one, Sean. Michelle Malkin has this covered on her site. http://www.michellemalkin.com/ Here is a good portion of it:

Reuters notes:

Treasury spokeswoman Brookly McLaughlin said the 12-agency Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, chaired by Treasury Secretary John Snow, had reviewed the transaction and did not object. Snow is a former chairman of freight rail company CSX Corp., which sold its global port assets to Dubai Ports World for $1.15 billion in 2004 -- the year after Snow had left the company for the Bush administration.
Stewart Baker, assistant secretary of policy at the Department of Homeland Security, said Dubai Ports World had a solid security record.
"We could not find anything concrete that led us to believe that the transaction ought to be stopped for national security reasons," Baker told Reuters.

Really? They couldn't find anything concrete? The New York Post did:

True, the deal reportedly was approved by the top-secret U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which decided there was no security risk. But at a time when security in the ports remains unacceptably lax, we wonder whether this is a wise move.
Dubai Ports, after all, is owned by the United Arab Emirates, whose banking system - considered the commercial center of the Arab world - provided most of the cash for the 9/11 hijackers. Indeed, much of the operational planning for the World Trade Center attacks took place inside the UAE.
And while the Bush folks now consider the UAE a major ally in the war against terror, the Treasury Department has been stonewalled by the emirates, and other Arab countries, in trying to track Osama bin Laden's bank accounts. The new leader of Dubai, one of the seven small countries that make up the UAE, has said all the right things about fighting radical Islam since 9/11. But this remains very much an Islamist nation, where preaching any religion other than Islam is prohibited.

Frank Gaffney also warns in the NY Sun:

This is not the first time this interagency panel - called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States - has made an astounding call about the transfer of control of strategically sensitive U.S. assets to questionable purchasers. In fact, as of last summer, CFIUS had, since its creation in 1988, formally rejected only one of 1,530 transactions submitted for its review. Such a record is hardly surprising given that the committee is chaired by the Treasury Department, whose institutional responsibilities include promoting foreign investment in the United States. Treasury has rarely seen a foreign purchase of American assets that it did not like. And this bias on the part of the chairman of CFIUS has consistently skewed the results of the panel's deliberations in favor of approving deals, even those opposed by other, more national security-minded departments. Thanks to the secrecy with which CFIUS operates, it is not clear at this writing whether any such objection was heard with respect to the idea of contracting out management of six of our country's most important ports to a UAE company. There would certainly appear to be a number of grounds for rejecting this initiative, however:
* America's seaports have long been recognized by homeland security experts as among our most vulnerable targets. Huge quantities of cargo move through them every day, much of it of uncertain character and provenance, nearly all of it inadequately monitored. Matters can only be made worse by port managers who might conspire to bring in dangerous containers, or simply look the other way when they arrive.
* Entrusting information about key U.S. ports - including, presumably, government-approved plans for securing them, to say nothing of the responsibility for controlling physical access to these facilities, to a country known to have been penetrated by terrorists is not just irresponsible. It is recklessly so...
...How could even a stacked deck like the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States find it possible to approve the Dubai Ports World's transaction?
Could it have been influenced by the fact that a former senior official of the UAE company, David Sanborn, was recently named the new administrator of the Transportation Department's Maritime Administration? Until recently, Mr. Sanborn was DP World's director of operations for Europe and Latin America.
Or is it because the U.S. government views - and is determined to portray - the United Arab Emirates as a vital ally in this war for the Free World? A similar determination has long caused Washington to treat Saudi Arabia as a valued friend, even as the Saudis continue playing a double game whereby they work simultaneously to repress terrorism at home and abet it abroad.
Whatever the explanation, the nation can simply no longer afford to have the disposition of strategic assets - including those that have a military or homeland security dimension - determined by a Treasury-dominated panel whose deliberations and decisions are made in secret without congressional oversight.
Either the president or Congress should see to it that the United Arab Emirates is not entrusted with the operation of any American ports, and that the Treasury Department is stripped of the lead role in evaluating such dubious foreign investments in the United States.

One of my readers offers a different view:

My husband works in the international transportation industry. In fact, his boss at one time was Dave Sanborn, the man that the White House has appointed to a post within the Maritime Commission. Dave was most recently working for DWI in the Dominican Republic and has worked for them before. DWI is not "buying the American ports" as I see frequently misrepresented in articles about this in the MSM. American ports cannot be bought. They are buying the port operating division of a London-based, British-owned Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. That purchase will include current contracts that P&O ports has with the various ports listed in the stories. There are other port operation companies out there. The port in New York or any of the other ports mentioned could choose to contract with some other company if they do not want DWI being responsible for operating terminals in these ports. As we understand it the same employees who work for P&O currently will still be the employees that work there after the purchase goes through.
I don't think there are suddenly going to be Arabs running all over the ports. Anymore so than there already are. Actually because of regulations and unions, more and more of ocean shipping, port operations and terminal operations in America are being run by non-American companies. Just a heads up...as we read the stories the information is so fact challenged. My husband does think there is room for some clarification, but to have Chucky [Schumer] out there trying to make this into a "the Bush adminstration IS NOT concerned about port security" is just spin.

Well, she makes a few good points about the how and why of the deal. But whether we should do it is the key issue. And my bottom line is that the deal looks bad and smells worse.
I'm with the Washington Times:

The root question is this: Why should the United States have to gamble its port security on whether a subsidiary of the government of the United Arab Emirates happens to remain an antiterrorism ally? The Committee on Foreign Investment is the wrong place for this decision to be made; it appears to be little more than a rubber stamp.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, New York Democrat, among others, is asking tough questions about this deal. For once, we agree with him: President Bush should overrule the committee to reject this deal. If that doesn't happen, Congress should take action. The country's ports should not be owned by foreign governments; much less governments whose territories are favored by al Qaeda.

Contact the White House:
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461
comments@whitehouse.gov
***
FYI, you can find a map of terminal facilities operated around the world by DPI here.
Update: Ed Morrissey digs up concrete concerns abot the UAE in the 9/11 Commission report:

Page 138: "Even after Bin Ladin’s departure from the area, CIA officers hoped he might return, seeing the camp as a magnet that could draw him for as long as it was still set up.The military maintained readiness for another strike opportunity.160 On March 7, 1999, [Richard] Clarke called a UAE official to express his concerns about possible associations between Emirati officials and Bin Ladin.Clarke later wrote in a memorandum of this conversation that the call had been approved at an interagency meeting and cleared with the CIA." [This involved Clarke blowing a cover on a covert operation.] Page 167: "In early 2000,Atta, Jarrah, and Binalshibh returned to Hamburg. Jarrah arrived first, on January 31, 2000.97 According to Binalshibh, he and Atta left Kandahar together and proceeded first to Karachi, where they met KSM and were instructed by him on security and on living in the United States. Shehhi apparently had already met with KSM before returning to the UAE.Atta returned to Hamburg in late February, and Binalshibh arrived shortly thereafter. Shehhi’s travels took him to the UAE (where he acquired a new passport and a U.S. visa), Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and one or more other destinations."
Page 171: "Bin Ladin relied on the established hawala networks operating in Pakistan, in Dubai, and throughout the Middle East to transfer funds efficiently."
Page 216: "On June 20, Hanjour returned home to Saudi Arabia. He obtained a U.S. student visa on September 25 and told his family he was returning to his job in the UAE. Hanjour did go to the UAE, but to meet facilitator Ali Abdul
Aziz Ali.62"
Page 224: "The Hamburg operatives paid for their flight training primarily with funds wired from Dubai by KSM’s nephew,Ali Abdul Aziz Ali. Between June 29 and September 17, 2000,Ali sent Shehhi and Atta a total of $114,500 in five transfers ranging from $5,000 to $70,000."
Page 236: "After training in Afghanistan, the operatives went to a safehouse maintained by KSM in Karachi and stayed there temporarily before being deployed to the United States via the UAE. ... Ali apparently assisted nine
future hijackers between April and June 2001 as they came through Dubai. He helped them with plane tickets, traveler’s checks, and hotel reservations; he also taught them about everyday aspects of life in the West, such as purchasing clothes and ordering food. Dubai, a modern city with easy access to a major airport, travel agencies, hotels, and Western commercial establishments,was an ideal transit point."

Ed concludes: "In fact, many of the 9/11 hijackers transited through the UAE, and a significant amount of al-Qaeda cash came through UAE-based accounts. If they run their own country's borders so poorly, why would we trust them to run ours?"
Exactly.
Update II: Debbie Schlussel has background on Dubai's Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum.

Before I get in touch with somebody at the White House, Sean, what have you to say about this assertion by the wife of the man in the international transport industry that port security is not going to be an issue, along with the reasoning?

[Sean Osborne]

There are individual and personal financial considerations of those inside the Bush Administration involved here and the appearance if not defacto conflict of interest should warrant an immeidate halt to this sale.

Treasury spokeswoman Brookly McLaughlin said the 12-agency Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, chaired by Treasury Secretary John Snow, had reviewed the transaction and did not object.
Snow is a former chairman of freight rail company CSX Corp which sold its global port assets to Dubai Ports World for $1.15 billion in 2004 -- the year after Snow had left the company for the Bush administration.

http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspxtype=bondsNews&storyID=2006-02-16T214038Z_01_N16375949_RTRIDST_0_SECURITY-USA-DUBAI.XML

FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF U.S. AIRLINES & PORTS DEEMED TROUBLING

And while possible ownership of U.S. airlines may be permitted within a year, control of operations and security of six U.S. ports will be given to the United Arab Emirates and based in Dubai. The London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. was purchased on February 13, 2006 by Dubai Ports World. The deal is expected to be finalized on March 2, 2006. Peninsular and Oriental Steam Co. is the world’s fourth largest ports company and the sale affects the commercial U.S. ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) is a secretive government panel comprised of designees from the Department of Treasury, the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, the Department of Commerce, the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security. In January 2006, the Bush administration appointed a former Director of Operations for Europe and Latin America for Dubai Ports World as the new Maritime Administrator within the Department of Transportation, raising more than a few eyebrows.

But most puzzling to lawmakers is how Dubai, which provided most of the financing for the 19 hijackers on 9/11/2001, will now be overseeing the very port where nearly 3,000 lives were claimed that day. And Dubai was the base for much of the terrorist planning and operations for the attacks in New York and Washington, according to the FBI.

Since the Bush administration considers Dubai and the UAE a vital ally in the war against terrorism, it approves of the sale. However, it raises vital questions of U.S. national security and homeland security policies at ports where presently less than 5% of all cargo is inspected. And having an Islamist nation in charge of U.S. ports arguably makes little in allowing it to dictate port operations, given that U.S. ports remain top terrorist targets.

With the Department of Homeland Security still struggling to implement systems and operations to secure U.S. ports, allowing Dubai to run the ports could be a gateway for contraband, weapons of mass destruction and arsenals, as well as hiring practices without proper scrutiny, including the quality of security which would have to conform to U.S. law. Steve Coleman, Port Authority of New York/New Jersey spokesman stated, “We need to take a real close look at security before we approve such a company.”

James Lewis, a former State and Commerce Department contractor, sums it up by saying, “It’s in Dubai’s interest to make sure this runs well.” And unfortunately, it will take an act of Congress to prevent the finality of the sale in what will become the world’s second largest port operator. Hopefully, cooler heads in the Congress will prevail in the best interests of the U.S. in order to supercede those of foreign interests, all in the name of globalization. For the greatest asset to the U.S. is the American people; who not only deserve the protection of their government but one which vows to do its best to prevent terrorism on its shores ever again. Anything less is just unacceptable.

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=12385

[Sean Osborne]

Before I get in touch with somebody at the White House, Sean, what have you to say about this assertion by the wife of the man in the international transport industry that port security is not going to be an issue, along with the reasoning?

Get your Email to the White house asap any way you can... this needs to be stopped dead in its tracks and I don't care what that wife had to say... I say no way we should allow Muslim's to have control of major east coast port facilities.

I tried using the email addy Michelle Malkin posted, and that is how it is listed on the WH website - but it did not work for me.

[Aplomb]

Thanks, Sean. Email sent. I put the address in myself in my email compose option. Those email links, like the one I posted above never work for me, either. The address is: comments@whitehouse.gov.

[Sean Osborne]

I hope you all are following this fiasco as closely as you can, and that seems a relativley easy task as the mainstream media has latched onto President Bush's most recent "Harriet Miers moment" with relish and aplomb. Even the GOP is largely against this deal, from the governors of several states to Congressional leadership.

Rush Limbaugh has focused on the radical left of the democrat party opposition to this deal - which really is the only way he can attack the issue and still appear to publicly support the President.

However, that said, I will say that I am also vehemently opposed to Dubai Ports World gaining control over eight (8) critical American ports.

This is a bilateral U.S.-U.A.E. issue. There are continuing negotiations between the Bush Administration and the U.A.E. to establish a free trade agreement. The ports deal is a gift to sweeten the pot for the Emirates royal family. With control of US ports these islamic radical-loving Arab royals would reap themselves huge financial rewards.

The point is that this negotiation is blatant GLOBALISM run amok over the interests of US National Security. This negotiation flies in the face of known established facts about the U.A.E Royal Family and their direct relationship with Osama bin Laden and AL QEADA.

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS VERY MUCH AWARE OF THIS RELATIONSHIP. IT COULD BE THE ONE THING WHICH THE DEMS HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR IN ORDER TO BRING DOWN BUSH AND GET A WHOLLY UNDESERVED VICTORY IN BOTH THE 2006 AND 2008 ELECTIONS.

Hold onto your hats...

UAE royals, bin Laden's saviours

March 25, 2004 12:04 IST


The Central Intelligence Agency did not target Al Qaeda chief Osama bin
laden once as he had the royal family of the United Arab Emirates with him
in Afghanistan, the agency's director, George Tenet, told the National
Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States on Thursday.

Had the CIA targeted bin Laden, half the royal family would have been wiped out as well, he said.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/25osama.htm

[Malsua]

I'm also against this deal. Whomever is running these ports operationally will have intimate knowledge of security procedures. Infiltration of an Arab owned company by radical MOOs is significantly easier than companies from other parts of the globe. DPW might be up and up, might be all that. I don't trust Moos, most, in the back of their mind in some fashion believe or support the war against the west. All it would take is for one sympathizer to suggest that a boat comes in on a certain day, with such and such declared cargo(something never scanned) and to be shipped to such and such place. Let's just not visit there.

[American Patriot]

This is akin to Carter giving up on the Panama Canal, and eventually allowing it to fall into the hands of the Chinese.

Bad news for the US in general.

[falcon]

Sean thanks have sent e-mails. I guess the next question is who is operating the other ports in the US? I did a google but did not come up with any info. As we are looking at these six shouldsn't we look at all of them? Anyone got info who manages the other ports. Thanks

[MTStringer]

UAE terminal takeover extends to 21 ports


By PAMELA HESS
UPI Pentagon Correspondent WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 (UPI) -- A United Arab Emirates government-owned company is poised to take over port terminal operations in 21 American ports, far more than the six widely reported.
The Bush administration has approved the takeover of British-owned Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to DP World, a deal set to go forward March 2 unless Congress intervenes.
P&O is the parent company of P&O Ports North America, which leases terminals for the import and export and loading and unloading and security of cargo in 21 ports, 11 on the East Coast, ranging from Portland, Maine to Miami, Florida, and 10 on the Gulf Coast, from Gulfport, Miss., to Corpus Christi, Texas, according to the company's Web site.
President George W. Bush on Tuesday threatened to veto any legislation designed to stall the handover.
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. said after the briefing she expects swift, bi-partisan approval for a bill to require a national security review before it is allowed to go forward.
At issue is a 1992 amendment to a law that requires a 45-day review if the foreign takeover of a U.S. company "could affect national security." Many members of Congress see that review as mandatory in this case.
But Bush administration officials said Thursday that review is only triggered if a Cabinet official expresses a national security concern during an interagency review of a proposed takeover.
"We have a difference of opinion on the interpretation of your amendment," said Treasury Department Deputy Secretary Robert Kimmitt.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, comprised of officials from 12 government departments and agencies, including the National Security Council and the Department of Homeland Security, approved the deal unanimously on January 17.
"The structure of the deal led us to believe there were no national security concerns," said Homeland Security Deputy Secretary Michael P. Jackson.
The same day, the White House appointed a DP World executive, David C. Sanborn, to be the administrator for the Maritime Administration of the Department of Transportation. Sanborn had been serving as director of operations for Europe and Latin America at DP World.
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R- Va., said he will request from both the U.S. attorney general and the Senate committee's legal counsel a finding on the administration's interpretation of the 1992 amendment.
Adding to the controversy is the fact Congress was not notified of the deal. Kimmitt said Congress is periodically updated on completed CFIUS decisions, but is proscribed from initiating contact with Congress about pending deals. It may respond to congressional inquiries on those cases only.
Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley stated in a letter to Bush on Feb. 21 that he specifically requested to be kept abreast of foreign investments that may have national security implications. He made the request in the wake of a controversial Chinese proposal to purchase an oil company last year.
"Obviously, my request fell on deaf ears. I am disappointed that I was neither briefed nor informed of this sale prior to its approval. Instead, I read about it in the media," he wrote.
According to Kimmitt, the deal was reported on in major newspapers as early as last October. But it did not get critical attention in the press until the Associated Press broke the story Feb. 11 and the Center for Security Policy, a right-leaning organization, wrote about it Feb. 13. CSP posited the sale as the Treasury Department putting commerce interests above national security.
Kimmitt said because the 2005 Chinese proposal had caused such an uproar before it ever got to CFIUS, the lack of reaction to the Dubai deal when it was reported on last fall suggested it would not be controversial enough to require special notification of Congress.
Central to the debate is the fact that the United Arab Emirates, while a key ally of the United States in the Middle East, has had troubling ties to terrorist networks, according to the Sept. 11 Commission report. It was one of the few countries in the world that recognized the al-Qaida-friendly Taliban government in Afghanistan; al-Qaida funneled millions of dollars through the U.A.E. financial sector; and A.Q. Khan, the notorious Pakistani nuclear technology smuggler, used warehouses near the Dubai port as a key transit point for many of his shipments.
Since the terrorist attacks, it has cut ties with the Taliban, frozen just over $1 million in alleged terrorist funding, and given the United States key military basing and over-flight rights. At any given time, there are 77,000 U.S. service members on leave in the United Arab Emirates, according to the Pentagon.
Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England warned that the uproar about the United Arab Emirates involvement in U.S. ports could risk alienating the very countries in the Middle East the United States is trying to court as allies in the war on terrorism.
"It's very important we strengthen bonds ... especially with friends and allies in the Arab world. It's important that we treat friends and allies equally around the world without discrimination," he said.
The security of port terminal operations is a key concern. More than 7 million cargo containers come through 361 American ports annually, half of the containers through New York-New Jersey, Los Angeles and Long Beach, Calif. Only a small percentage are physically searched and just 37 percent currently screened for radiation, an indication of an attempt to smuggle in nuclear material that could be used for a "dirty bomb."
After the September 11 terrorist attacks, the government began a new program that required documentation on all cargo 24 hours before it was loaded on a ship in a foreign port bound for the United States. A "risk analysis" is conducted on every shipment, including a review of the ship's history, the cargo's history and contents and other factors. Each ship must also provide the U.S. government 96 hours notice of its arrival in an American port, along with a crew manifest.
None of the nine administration officials assembled for the briefing could immediately say how many of the more than 3,000 port terminals are currently under foreign control.
Port facility operators have a major security responsibility, and one that could be exploited by terrorists if they infiltrate the company, said Joe Muldoon III. Muldoon is an attorney representing Eller & Co., a port facility operator in Florida partnered with M&O in Miami. Eller opposes the Dubai takeover for security reasons.
"The Coast Guard oversees security, and they have the authority to inspect containers if they want and they can look at manifests, but they are really dependent on facility operators to carry out security issues," Muldoon said.
The Marine Transportation Security Act of 2002 requires vessels and port facilities to conduct vulnerability assessments and develop security plans including passenger, vehicle and baggage screening procedures; security patrols; establishing restricted areas; personnel identification procedures; access control measures; and/or installation of surveillance equipment.
Under the same law, port facility operators may have access to Coast Guard security incident response plans -- that is, they would know how the Coast Guard plans to counter and respond to terrorist attacks.
"The concern is that the UAE may be our friend now ... but who's to say that couldn't change, or they couldn't be infiltrated. Iran was our big buddy," said Muldoon.
In a January report, the Council on Foreign Relations pointed out the vulnerability of the shipping security system to terrorist exploitation.
Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the U.S. customs agency requires shippers to follow supply chain security practices. Provided there are no apparent deviations from those practices or intelligence warnings, the shipment is judged low risk and is therefore unlikely to be inspected.
CFR suggests a terrorist event is likely to be a one-time operation on a trusted carrier "precisely because they can count on these shipments entering the U.S. with negligible or no inspection."
"All a terrorist organization needs to do is find a single weak link within a 'trusted' shipper's complex supply chain, such as a poorly paid truck driver taking a container from a remote factory to a port. They can then gain access to the container in one of the half-dozen ways well known to experienced smugglers," CFR wrote.


Sean, gentlemen, aaahz here from "the other forum". Been lurking for a while, now, good a time as any to jump in, I suppose. As for the article above, is this number( affected ports) correct? I'm curious how many more little details may surface as time passes and the smoke clears. While I must admit to disbelief that any administration would even consider this act, as the following article points out, no matter how secure we try to make our ports, we have little control elsewhere.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...R2006022302303

Personally, what galls me most is that such a move would even be considered, and wondering what else lurks, waiting, to be sprung before '08.

[MTStringer]

Just like a newbie, duplicate posting, sorry.

[Aplomb]

What does UAE have to say?

Published: 02/20/2006 12:00 AM (UAE)

The stench of craftiness

By Rashid Saleh Al Oraimy, Special to Gulf News

Even since Islamophobia became the active currency in the hands of US rightists, who invent a new bogus enemy every new day, the symptoms of such a syndrome (Islamophobia) have begun appearing in various segments in the West, whether open-minded or narrow-minded, liberal or fanatic. Islamophobia is rising and has become like an infectious disease that spreads amidst political and media circles in the West. In its editorial on Thursday, February 16, The New York Times, which prides itself as the first newspaper that speaks of US liberalism, called on the US administration to reconsider the decision that gives Dubai Ports World control over London-based P&O, which operates the Port of New York, and other US ports. The newspaper said the move would pose a danger to the US national security on the pretext that many of the September 11 hijackers and planners travelled through the UAE. It also said the UAE banking system was used in preparing for the attacks. The newspaper has not been satisfied with this baseless allegation and also called on Bush administration to block the sale and prevent Dubai Ports World from obtaining its commercial rights due to terror-related reasons. Discrepancy and bad faith in the editorial can come under the famous saying: "Explaining an obvious matter makes it more complicated." Yet, the US banking system and even flight-training institutes and US airports are to be blamed as they hosted those terrorists who carried out the September 11 attacks. The US is the country to be blamed since its security services, the strongest in the world, did not succeed in uncovering the plot and left the terrorists free until they struck the country. Responsible So, no country should be blamed or held responsible for the acts of terrorists, who managed to transfer money for financing their attacks. Yet, if it is a must that a country should be blamed and held responsible, than no doubt the US is to be blamed. The issue of acquiring the British company that operates US ports is a mere business matter and it has nothing to do with politics, and thus, it must be looked at within its true framework. Worse, such a tricky means by The New York Times brings out the smell of incompetence for dubious commercial purposes. If not, what is the logical explanation for printing a shocking and unfair editorial? Such an editorial comes within the context of incitement against a peaceful company operating under the umbrella of the law in the UAE and the US. Does Dubai Ports World not practise its activities in the US, and other countries, in line with international and local laws followed in each country? And, if the answer is yes, it means that objectivity and credibility will be the victims if a distinction is made. It will also deepen the already bleeding wounds of The New York Times and its reputation will be in the mud. No one can forget the newspaper's recent scandal in which its journalist Judith Miller was arrested and prosecuted because she refused to give the names of her sources. Where does The New York Times stand today? And where is the objective and fair media now? Rashed Saleh Al Oraimi is a UAE-based columnist for Al Ittihad newspaper.

http://www.gulfnews.com/indepth/pand.../10020010.html

[catfish]

So we are going to stop a handful of Arabs from managing some ports in our country but not from flying in our planes? If we are going to stop this then we need to racial profile and investigate every single Arab that wants to fly. Only seems fair, right? I mean last time I flew, I was basically stripped searched when I went through security because I was wearing a carbon fiber knee brace because of my ACL surgery. Me, a white Christian.

And what about the Chinese? They manage ports in our country also while their military is in the middle of an unprecedented military buildup against us. Doesnt our government know that Chinese shipping is a military asset? I guess its more important to be re-elected than to protect our country, and the American people arent going to say a whole lot as long as their shopping malls are still open.

[Ryan Ruck]

I guess the next question is who is operating the other ports in the US? I did a google but did not come up with any info. As we are looking at these six shouldsn't we look at all of them? Anyone got info who manages the other ports.

The Chinese run a large number of ports throughout the US. Those trouble me as much as this proposed deal does, if not more so.



The above is a dated graphic showing Chinese managed ports. Today there are many more not only in the US but also in South/Central America (including Mexico).

---

MTS/aaahz,
Good to see ya posting here!

Welcome!

As to your question, I have heard the new number reported elsewhere. Also, two of the ports (Beaumont and Corpus Christi) are military ports that handle shipping war materiel to the Middle East.

---

catfish,
J.R. Nyquist has just written a piece that I think dovetails nicely with your point. I will be posting it to the "Miscellaneous Trans-Asian Axis Topics" forum shortly.

[Sean Osborne]

UAE terminal takeover extends to 21 ports

Sean, gentlemen, aaahz here from "the other forum". Been lurking for a while, now, good a time as any to jump in, I suppose.

aaahz,

Wecome and you come to the right place, No reason to lurk, we're all old friends here.

As for the article above, is this number( affected ports) correct?

Yup, roger that... the total is 21 ports.

Here's an easy way to grasp the magnitude of this fiasco

I'm curious how many more little details may surface as time passes and the smoke clears.

You, me and a host of other people are wondering the same thing. There's a severe case of "pucker factor" in DC right now over this. Bottom line is that the royal family of the UAE as Islamists and there's just NO WAY the US government should ever deal with such except as enemies of this Republic. Period.

While I must admit to disbelief that any administration would even consider this act

I can and do believe it. The folks running this plot have revealed themselves to be the GLOBALISTS they truly are. Now we know what the true price of US National Security is... it is expendable for the sake of bulding a GLOBALIST economic order.

[Sean Osborne]

JUST WHEN YOU LEAST EXPECT IT THIS COMES ALONG AND REALLY SHOWS YOU JUST HOW TOTALLY -UP US INTELLIGENCE APARATUS REALLY IS.


Obscure US intelligence agency assessed ports deal
(Reuters)

23 February 2006

WASHINGTON - A deal that allows Dubai Ports World to manage six major USports was scrutinized for security risks by an obscure intelligence agency that has existed for only four months, American officials said on Wednesday.


The Intelligence Community Acquisition Risk Center, or CARC, overseen by the office of intelligence chief John Negroponte, was asked by the government committee that vets foreign investments in the United States to look into the ports deal soon after it came to its attention in early November.

US officials approved the sale of British-based P&O to Dubai Ports World of
the United Arab Emirates on Jan. 16, giving the Arab-owned firm a green
light to take over port operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore,
Philadelphia, New Orleans and Miami.

But the deal has since unleashed a political firestorm from both Republicans and Democrats, who see it as a potential risk to national security.

The White House sought to stem criticism on Wednesday by saying the port takeover had been reviewed by intelligence agencies, including
counterterrorism experts.

"The intelligence community did assessments to make sure that there was no national security threat," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told
reporters.

But intelligence officials said CARC, which has little to do with
counterterrorism activities, was formed just last October as the agency mandated to assess security risks posed by companies that do business withthe intelligence community.

Only a small part of the center's resources are devoted to vetting
commercial deals, officials said.

CARC's first director, William Dawson, was appointed in January, [only] a little more than a month after the center had been asked to begin work on the Dubai Ports World acquisition.

Dawson had been a senior information technology official [That's right hire an IT guy for critical hands-on intelligence work!!!] for the intelligence community prior to his appointment.

A spokesman for Negroponte acknowledged the intelligence community provided an assessment but declined to discuss specifics.

Intelligence officials, who requested anonymity because they were not
authorized to speak publicly about CARC, said many of the center's functions were transferred to Negroponte's office from the CIA in 2005 as a result of congressionally mandated intelligence reforms.

[Sean Osborne]

I recieved this within the past hour.

UPDATE: Got confirmation and this report is now updated with a signature at the bottom of the communication.


Special Reports : Al Qaeda to UAE: You Are Fully Infiltrated By Us


An anonymous source has provided the Northeast Intelligence Network with a translated copy of a recovered Al Qaeda document from Afghanistan dated 14 May/June 2002. The text informs officials of the UAE that "we have infiltrated your security, censorship, and monetary agencies along with other agencies that should not be mentioned."

In light of the current debacle with Dubai Ports World, and fears of security vulnerabilities at 21 American port facilities, this document is further evidence of the need for a full, no-stone-left-unturned review of the transaction and its implications.

The full translated text of the Al Qaeda document recovered in Afghanistan:

In the Name of Allah the Most Compassionate and Mericful


Number ________ Date 14/May/June/2002


Al Jihad Qaida's

{Get the idolaters out of Arab island}

To: Officials in the United Arab Emirates and especially the two emirates of
Abu-Dhabi and Dubai:

We have come to know definitely that the Emirate country is committing acts of
injustice against the striving youth of the Emirates and others who sympathize
with us in order to appease the Americans' wishes which include spting,
persecution, and detainments. The United Emirates authorities have recently
detained a number of Mujahideen and handed them over to suppressive
organizations in their country in addition to having a number of them still in its
custody. Undoubtedly, these practices bring the country into a fighting ring in
which it cannot endure or escape from its consequences especially since the
Emirates' social composition is the most productive, and very explosive.

You are well aware that we have infiltrated your security, censorship, and
monetary agencies along with other agencies that should not be mentioned.
Therefore, we warn of the continuation of practicing such policies, which do not
serve your inteests and will only cost you many problems that will place you in
an embarrassing state before your citizens. In addition, it will prove your
agencies' immobility and failure. Also, we are confident that you are fully
aware that your agencies will not get to the same high level of your American
Lords. Furthermore, your intelligence will not be cleverer than theirs, and your
censorship capabilities are not worth much against what they have reached. In
spite of all this Allah has granted us success to get even with them and harm
them.

However, you are an easier target than them; your homeland is exposed to us.
There are many vital interests that will hurt you if we decide to harm them,
especially, since you rely on shameless tourism in your economic income!!!

Finally, our policies are not to operate in your homeland and/or tamper with your
security because we are occupied with others which we consider are enemies of
this nation. If you compel us to do so, we are prepared to postpone our program
for a short period and allocate some time for you.

Therefore, we ask you to release all the Mujahideen detainees since September.

(signed) أسامة بن Usama bin Laden

[Sean Osborne]

Wow... word gets around FAST.


http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/64126.htm

Al Qaeda Claimed To Have Infiltrated UAE Government Three Years Ago
by Joe Gandelman


This New York Post report could prove one more headache for the Bush administration as it digs in its heels on its approval of a highly criticized plan to let a United Arab Emirates company manage key U.S. ports:

Al Qaeda warned the government of the United Arab Emirates more than three years ago that it "infiltrated" key government agencies, according to a disturbing document released by the U.S. military.

The warning was contained in a June 2002 message to UAE rulers, in which the terror network demanded the release of an unknown number of "mujahedeen detainees," who it said had been arrested during a government crackdown in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

...Little is known about the origins or authorship of the message.

"You are well aware that we have infiltrated your security, censorship and monetary agencies, along with other agencies that should not be mentioned," the message said.

"Therefore, we warn of the continuation of practicing . . . policies which do not serve your interest and will only cost you many problems that will place you in an embarrassing state before your citizens."

The Post also quotes "terrorism expert Lorenzo Vidino" as noting that this does show that the United Arab Emirates is cooperating with the United States on the terror war. On the other hand, he says:

"But it also reveals that even though they [the UAE] are our friends, al Qaeda seems to have people on the inside in the UAE, just as it has in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Qatar and Kuwait."

[Aplomb]

Um, what about the 9 US ports controlled by Saudi Arabia?

Hillary Has "Port Values" Except when it's Saudi Arabia or China



"Now these choices reveal a disheartening pattern of the ideology, influence and incompetence that we have seen. And, they violate our values and our interests. Now, I don't claim that democrats are always right but we are far more likely to make choices that reflect the values and advance the well being of the American people."

Hillary Clinton
Speaking on the UAE Ports Deal & "Port Values(?)"
VIDEO HERE

After that "value violation" tirade, why did the media not ask Hillary about the Saudi run US ports?

As Sweetness and Light pointed out, the National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia (NSCSA) already runs 9 ports here in the US!

And, it was back in 1997, when Hillary was serving as co-president, that the Saudi owned shipping company (NSCSA) began service between North America and Italy, Greece and Turkey?

This just proves that the Clintons have evolved a long way since 1999 when they claimed that port control was "silly stuff".

Back in 1999 when a Chinese owned Hutchinson-Whampoa, Ltd. took control of ports at both ends of the Panama Canal the Clinton White House scoffed at the security risks:

Clinton White House spokesman Joe Lockhart dismissed the Insight story about Chinese port control including the Panama Canal and the surrounding controversy as "silly stuff."

Chinese owned Hutchison-Whampoa Ltd. today owns 90% of Panama Ports Company.

Back when port control was "silly stuff"...

The Clintons watched as China became gate keepers at both ends of the Panama Canal.

So "Communist China" controlling ports is good, "Saudi Arabia" (remember 9-11?) controlling ports is good, but other more moderate Arab allies from the Middle East controlling ports is "bad".

Jim Geraghty at TKS has a must read on the disinformation campaign about the UAE port management deal today:

AN ORGANIZED DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN ON THE PORT DEAL

Generation Why? has thoughts on the ports deal.
Powerline reports on the "Sound and Fury" of the UAE port controversy.
Jamie Allman has a bit of advice for President Bush.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/

Americans should be the ones at our ports. Nobody can be absolutely trusted regardless, but at least you've got less worries w/ people from our own country. But certainly you guys see that this is a political ploy by democrats and the current port deal "fear" is significant for the upcoming elections in gaining the support of the people, seeing the dems as the step-up-to-the-plate politicians to be voted for. That is how this looks to me, anyway.

[Sean Osborne]

Aplomb,

You're right. The radical democrat Clinton and Schumer cabal in Congress has seized this issue for one purpose and one purpose only - to attack a sitting republican president in a time of war.

To it's own discredit, the Bush Administration allowed this fiasco to happen through its own incompetence and extreme lack of oversight.

Foreign run or multi-national run US ports have never been an issue, yet port security has been a major hot-button issue since 9/11. The UAE's ties to Al Qaeda are what have brought this issue to the explosive boiling point. In the past couple of days the lid was removed from the pressure cooker, but the water is still at a rapid boil.