Arab-run Firm Buys Company With Major Commercial Operations From 6 Large US Ports

New Posts

PrayersForMaura

PrayersForMaura

Help Find Maura Murray
Joined
Aug 14, 2003
Messages
14,162
Reaction score
138
Lawmakers Urge Greater Review of UAE Firm's Deal to Run Six U.S. Ports

WASHINGTON — Questioning the United Arab Emirates' track record in the War on Terror, seven U.S. lawmakers said Thursday they want a committee led by Treasury Secretary John Snow to thoroughly review a deal that would let a UAE-based firm run six major U.S. ports.
"We're calling for the full six-week investigation. It's a serious investigation and the reason why this is critical is while maybe there's nothing wrong with this company, how do we know they're not infiltrated?" asked Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "The United Arab Emirates has had people involved in terrorism. In fact, some of its financial institutions laundered the money for the (Sept, 11) terrorists. And to just blithely go ahead and treat this as another economic transaction is all wrong."

Currently, London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., the fourth largest port operator in the world, runs the six ports. But the $6.8 million sale of P&O to UAE-owned Dubai Ports World (DPW) would effectively turn over North American operations to the government-owned company in Dubai.

If the approval is unchallenged, Dubai Ports World would run the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.


More: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185107,00.html
 
Ok ... I usually support much of what this administration has done, but THIS in my opinion is REALLY STUPID.

Our ports are a key way to get through to our country. Ships can be used as major weapons of mass destruction.
And since when have we trusted Arabs, period?
Maybe I'm missing something here? :waitasec:

I am very disappointed in this move and I hope the sale gets blocked. This totally goes against National Security. But, they know more of what they are doing than I do.
 
Port Takeover Security Inadequate

<snip>

In a statement, the New Jersey Democrat said, "No matter what steps the administration claims it has secretly taken, it is an unacceptable risk to turn control of our ports over to a foreign government, particularly one with a troubling history. We cannot depend on promises a foreign government has given the administration in secret to secure our ports."


More: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060219/ap_on_go_co/port_security;_ylt=Asih4rHhrbZxaRiceOL12Eas0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MjBwMWtkBHNlYwM3MTg-
 
Administration OK With UAE Running Six Major U.S. Ports

Feb. 12, 2006

WASHINGTON — A company in the United Arab Emirates is poised to take over significant operations at six American ports as part of a corporate sale, leaving a country with ties to the Sept. 11 hijackers with influence over a maritime industry considered vulnerable to terrorism.
The Bush administration considers the UAE an important ally in the fight against terrorism since the suicide hijackings and is not objecting to Dubai Ports World's purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

The $6.8 billion sale is expected to be approved Monday. The British company is the fourth largest ports company in the world and its sale would affect commercial U.S. port operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

More: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184599,00.html
 
Chertoff Defends UAE Port Deal

WASHINGTON — Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff on Sunday defended the government's security review of an Arab company given permission to take over operations at six major U.S. ports.

"We make sure there are assurances in place, in general, sufficient to satisfy us that the deal is appropriate from a national security standpoint," Chertoff said on ABC's "This Week."

London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., was bought last week by Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business from the United Arab Emirates. Peninsular and Oriental runs major commercial operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

U.S. lawmakers from both parties are questioning the sale, approved by the Bush administration, as a possible risk to national security.

"It's unbelievably tone deaf politically at this point in our history," Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C. said on "FOX News Sunday."

"Most Americans are scratching their heads, wondering why this company from this region now," Graham said.

Added Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind.: "I think we've got to look into this company. We've got to ensure ... the American people that their national security interests are going to be protected."

More: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185347,00.html
 
Congressman: Port deal lacks sufficient security

Arab company would be allowed to run six ports

Sunday, February 19, 2006; Posted: 1:47 p.m. EST (18:47 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. terms for approving an Arab company's takeover of operations at six major American ports are insufficient to guard against terrorist infiltration, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee said Sunday.

"I'm aware of the conditions and they relate entirely to how the company carries out its procedures, but it doesn't go to who they hire, or how they hire people," Rep. Peter King, a New York Republican, said.

"They're better than nothing, but to me they don't address the underlying conditions, which is how are they going to guard against things like infiltration by al Qaeda or someone else, how are they going to guard against corruption?" King said.

More: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/19/port.security.ap/index.html
 
Ports Deal Prompts Lawsuit

WASHINGTON -- A Miami company is suing to stop an Arab firm from taking over shipping operations at the Port of Miami.


It's the first American courtroom effort to block a $6.8 billion deal between a British company and a state-owned firm in the United Arab Emirates.


The sale is already embroiled in a national debate over security risks at the six major U.S. ports affected.

More: http://www.ksat.com/politics/7200817/detail.html
 
Yes, this seems a bit more important than the Dick Cheney saga.

Our ports are wide open doors for people in other countries to put what they want to in the middle of our country.

So, we want them to be run by the United Arab Emirates? Where is the outrage?

Dubai has been the transfer point for shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Libya.
 
PrayersForMaura said:
Chertoff Defends UAE Port Deal

WASHINGTON — Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff on Sunday defended the government's security review of an Arab company given permission to take over operations at six major U.S. ports. ]

oh- that makes me feel all warm & fuzzy :bang: :sick: :bang: :sick: :bang: :sick: :bang: :sick: :bang:
i swear to god- what is wrong with this picture??? :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
Click to expand...
 
I'm with Prayers for Maura. I may be Republican, but I would no more allow a UAE based company to guard my ports. I say, we do it ourselves. This is stupid, no matter which way you present it. They may start out ok, but with Iran having gathered a reputed 10,000 suicide bombing volunteers for the Jihad, I wouldn't want anyone connected to a Middle Eastern Country to be in charge of our security.

There are some pretty prominent private security companies here in the US. Some of them are headed up by former Navy Seals, Special Ops experts, etc. Let's get them involved and train some of our own people for these jobs. Why give a contract to a foreign country? I would volunteer to add a couple of dollars to my taxes to hire Americans for this. Wouldn't you? Let's get the best, not outsource to save a few dollars so we can build a bridge to an island off Alaska to allow 50 residents to come to the mainland.
 
I think everyone feels the same way. I've never seen a CNN poll so lop-sided - 88 percent to 12 percent against selling the ports to Arabs.


This is a bad idea.
 
KatherineQ said:
I think everyone feels the same way. I've never seen a CNN poll so lop-sided - 88 percent to 12 percent against selling the ports to Arabs.


This is a bad idea.
Click to expand...
It maybe a bad idea but how can we live in a melting pot and say no to this?
IMO, since this is war time we should be able to protect ourselves from this being allowed. Though we are not at war with this country it is affiliated with the area.
 
Becba said:
It maybe a bad idea but how can we live in a melting pot and say no to this?
IMO, since this is war time we should be able to protect ourselves from this being allowed. Though we are not at war with this country it is affiliated with the area.
Click to expand...

We can live in a big melting pot (actually, we're more like a salad, with each piece fitting in but not melting into one homogeneous liquid) and not sell our ports to a foreign interest that currently is under HIGH suspicion. That's just stupid.

The Constitution isn't a suicide pact.
 
Arab-run secure American ports; is that an oxymoron or WHAT?

What are they thinking of? Chertoff, Shmertoff.
 
O.K. I am a Canadian and I even think that something is not Kosher here.

a) I don't trust the "administration" of GWB et al. Not one bit. To ever tell the truth.

b)If someone at some day, ever gets into this company and wants to use it to harm the USA, then they will be able to.

c)To risky, marine ports that are already vulnerable.

I just don't like it one bit, no way. I am sure deep inside this quagmire, there has to be something to do with OIL.

I don't see what the quid pro quo is for the USA.
 
My montre is intellictually honest....

Add this to the list of things I am severely at odds with this administration about....

This is going to be reviewed by Congress and refused.

Cal
 
Cheetah said:
I hope your right :(
Click to expand...
Me too! This is scary, to me.
It's a sad day that we may be able to get a vote for President but we don't get to vote for something this major. This is our land. The senators and representatives should at least get a vote for this. They represent us.

I see this move like one in the boardgame called "Risk". The bad guys are just putting more of their "armies" at the borders, building them up with more men, more power and then when they have us surrounded, they go in for the attack.
There will be no way for us to defend at that point.
When when they bring in the 10 guns versus our little 5 guns. I hate to use a game as an analogy, but I see it this way. And it's scary.

Plus, with Russia supplying technology to certain countries, and God knows who else is playing under the table, we may wind up being the defeders this time as opposed to the attackers.

Scary, scary, scary.
 
Cheetah said:
I hope you're right :(
Click to expand...

The Dems are correctly beginning steps to draft legislation to prevent this...and rightfully so.

Cal
 
I want to know why they have let ANY country other than the US own any sensitive areas like ports and airports in the first place. What happened to security concerns?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 234 more.
Total: 4,198 (members: 235, guests: 3,963)

Online statistics

Members online
235
Guests online
3,963
Total visitors
4,198
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,542
Messages
17,954,372
Members
228,529
Latest member
INSYSIV
Back
Top