castledoom.com

[JuntaJoe]

So the current lefty media spin is knee deep in the VP's shooting accident. It's the dirty laundry that they love. Obviously much more important than a serious threat to national security, right?

Thankfully, the radio media has pushed a serious topic through the tv fog and we are finally learning about an unbelievable threat to our national security.

How does everyone feel about an Arab country running security for every major port from NYC to New Orleans? That includes Philly, Baltimore, Newark, Tampa, and Miami. Or say about 40% of all the US tonnage capacity dockside.

Sadly, while it was the right wing media who pushed this issue forward, our conservative leaders and executive branch are trying to bury this. There is currently a strange alliance between liberal politicians and conservative media trying to get this issue heated up. Seems the Bush administration has made a sweetheart deal to gain allies in the Arab region. I'm all in favor of making friends there, but not at the expense of our security at our civilian ports. It only takes one radioactive dirty bomb in a shipping container to shut down a port in the same way Katrina has devastated the New Orleans port for the better portion of a year. There are limits to friendly overtures and our national trade lifeline should be off the table.

I finally found an AP article on the subject. I've known about this story for a week and still had nothing to post because the liberal media is too busy looking to throw crap at the VP over a domestic accident. Portgate would have been an excellent topic for them to bully the administration about, but I guess it doesn't have the sex appeal of a gun accident. Hype, spin, innuendo, and sensationalism with no effort to find substantive issues or factual data. That's what we get from mainsteam media these days. I guess it's not news before a container bomb goes off. They'll wait until after the event so they can smear someone with the fallout.


Anyway, here's the story:


Firm Sues to Block Foreign Port Takeover
February 19, 2006 12:36 AM EST

WASHINGTON - A company at the Port of Miami has sued to block the takeover of shipping operations there by a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates. It is the first American courtroom effort to capsize a $6.8 billion sale already embroiled in a national debate over security risks at six major U.S. ports affected by the deal.

The Miami company, a subsidiary of Eller & Company Inc., presently is a business partner with London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which Dubai Ports World purchased last week. In a lawsuit in Florida circuit court, the Miami subsidiary said that under the sale it will become an "involuntary partner" with Dubai's government and it may seek more than $10 million in damages.

The Miami subsidiary, Continental Stevedoring & Terminals Inc., said the sale to Dubai was prohibited under its partnership agreement with the British firm and "may endanger the national security of the United States." It asked a judge to block the takeover and said it does not believe the company, Florida or the U.S. government can ensure Dubai Ports World's compliance with American security rules.

A spokesman for Peninsular and Oriental indicated the company had not yet seen the lawsuit and declined to comment immediately.

The lawsuit represents the earliest skirmish over lucrative contracts among the six major American ports where Peninsular and Oriental runs major commercial operations: New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. The lawsuit was filed moments before the court closed Friday and disclosed late Saturday by people working on the case.

The sale, already approved by the Bush administration, has drawn escalating criticism by lawmakers in Washington who maintain the United Arab Emirates is not consistent in its support of U.S. terrorism-fighting efforts. At least one Senate oversight hearing is planned for later this month.

The Port of Miami is among the nation's busiest. It is a hub for the nation's cruise ships, which carry more than 6 million passengers a year, and the seaport services more than 30 ocean carriers, which delivered more than 1 million cargo containers there last year.

A New Jersey lawmaker said Saturday he intends to require U.S. port security officials be American citizens, to prevent overseas companies operating domestic shipping facilities from hiring foreigners in such sensitive positions. Republican Frank A. LoBiondo, chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, cited "significant" security worries over the sale to Dubai Ports World.

Caught by surprise over the breadth of concerns expressed in the United States, Dubai is cautiously organizing its response. The company quietly dispatched advisers to reassure port officials along the East Coast, and its chief operating officer - internationally respected American shipping executive Edward "Ted" H. Bilkey - is expected to travel to Washington this week for meetings on Capitol Hill and elsewhere.

The Bush administration in recent days has defended its approval of the sale, and has resisted demands by Congress to reconsider. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack described the United Arab Emirates on Friday as a "long-standing friend and ally" and said the United States and UAE had a good relationship.

President Bush visited the seaport in Tampa, Fla., but did not mention the dispute Friday. The president said an important element of defeating terrorism was taking precautions domestically and working with local government officials.

"We've got to protect ourselves by doing smart things in America," Bush said. "I appreciate working with the mayors on homeland security issues."

One of those mayors, Martin O'Malley of Baltimore, on Saturday harshly criticized the president's approval of the ports deal as an "outrageous, reckless and irresponsible decision" and urged the White House to reconsider the sale. Baltimore is one of the affected ports, and O'Malley is co-chairman of the U.S. Conference of Mayors' Task Force on Homeland Security. O'Malley also is running for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in Maryland.

Dubai Ports World declined through a spokesman to respond to O'Malley's remarks.

In New York, families of some victims from the September 2001 terror attacks planned to criticize the deal during a press conference Sunday with Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer, a leading critic of the sale. Schumer said he is dubious any assurances can justify involvement by the United Arab Emirates in American ports.

Schumer and other critics have cited the UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks against New York and Washington.

"A lot of families are incensed by this, because you're talking about the safety of the country," said William Doyle, whose son Joseph died at the World Trade Center. ""We have a problem already in our ports because all of our containers aren't checked, but now they want to add this unknown? It's not right."

LoBiondo's legislative proposal would amend federal maritime laws to require facility security officers, which operate at terminals in every U.S. port, to be American citizens. LoBiondo said there are presently no citizenship requirements, which he said permits foreign companies who are or become partners in domestic terminal operations to employ security officers who are not Americans.

"We cannot be lax about our nation's security nor fail to recognize that our ports are realistic targets of terrorists," LoBiondo said.

Copyright 2005 Associated Press.

[Georgie]

Ah, finally, someone's talking about it!

[JuntaJoe]

Oh, today everyone is talking about it.

Republican Senator Frist does a complete 180 and cries foul about this.

Trust me, he doesn't give a crap about this. He's just making a start for his presidential bid.

The Republicans on Capital Hill disgust me. They had time to go after this early, but didn't want to upset Bush. The Democrats had nothing to lose so they went earlier.


Here is the facts. This issue is going to be fixed because of public outcry only. Neither the Republicans or Democrats are fixing this because of patriotic reasons. They saw the wind changing directions and began flapping that way because it might get them a vote or two.

It's damn shameful if you ask me. Seems John Q. Public is the only one willing to do what's good for the country these days.

Who saved and sheltered the Katrina victims? The mayors and the people of this nation.

Who actually spoke up about Portgate first? The mayors and the people.

Even the press is doing it's usual act. Just like Katrina, they were only interested in it when the political fallout would be big and they could get their shots in.

Hell, even though he's dead wrong on this issue, at least Bush has the balls to stand up to all these idiots and say he's going ahead with the deal anyway. Everyone else in Washington is flapping in the breeze.


So who should you look to if you need your ass saved? Your neighbor because the national press and national politicians are only in it for themselves.

[NibbyCat]

According to the source I found, the company will NOT be in charge of security, the Coast Guard will still be.

[Georgie]

After some point, it is no longer a Party thing. Even President Bush threatened to veto a bill blocking the whole thing. Why are we so party oriented? After a while, you have to look for the interests of the country. While we continue a little party bicker, the country goes down. If Bush is going to veto the bill to stop the transaction or review, he is no better than the Democrates.

[bannie]

Maybe its because Im young and niave, but has politics always been like this?


I refuse to believe that our government has worked soley on a two party system where "loyalty"(lobbying) seems to be the only incentive to do anything. There has to have been a time when logic or doing whats right for the country at least had an impact

[JuntaJoe]

You are correct, Nibby, about what the company is about.

I learned only today that the company is buying the rights to manage the stevadore operations. Basically the loading and unloading of the ships.

I also learned that this company manages over 100 ports around the world already and the principal owner is the government of Dubai, which actually is one of our bigger partners in the war on terror seeing is that they opened lands for our military for new bases when we were chased out of Saudi Arabia.

Given that knowlege only, I might have changed my mind.


But..........


I learned a few other interesting facts. Seems the vetting process was a total joke. Supposedly the departments of Defense, Energy, Commerce, Transportation, and Homeland Security were to sign off on the proposal before allowing it to go forward. But absolutely none of the department Secretaries knew of this during the entire 3 month process and only learned about it this past weekend. It was all just a bunch of middle management types doing the approvals.

Furthermore, it was found out that the primary security check by all those departments consisted of merely asking the Justice Department if the company had a file opened due to risk factors. Since there was no file then everyone assumed the company was golden. No one called the company and checked their hiring, security, or operations proceedures. No one contacted other world port security offices to build a track record.

Hey, this company might not actually be all that bad and would do a good job here, but no one actually bothered to get data to verify that.

Homeland Security isn't about trust. It's about verification. This company needs a detailed screening at ALL levels before we approve the transaction.


They may only be loading and unloading ships, but that gives the company deep insight into our security proceedures. Even if they can't help terrorists directly get dangerous materials in then they can certainly tell the terrorists how to reduce the odds of getting caught. What good is it if the Coast Guard catches 2 out of 3 dirty bombs coming here? You still have a catastrophe.

Also remember they load ships going out. Do you know how we send main battle tanks to Iraq? On commercial shipping. The Navy doesn't haul large amounts of armored vehicles. They only have the capacity for the Marines. The Navy would need 3 years to haul the Army over to Iraq. So what happens when a bomb sinks a cargo ship hauling several hundred metric tons of repair parts to our armed services in Iraq? Everything begins breaking down and men die as a result.


Look, maybe we need to take a step back from the hoopla over this and not pre-judge the company. But we had damn well better do a proper security investigation of them before turning over the port keys.

Bush is wrong because he hasn't made his subordinates come up with detailed proof this company is ok so he could turn that info over to Congress when they finally got around to asking what's going on.

[NibbyCat]

JJ, can you give a source for that? I can't just quote you in the other forum where I posted about this.

[JuntaJoe]

Tony Snow is nationally syndicated on on late night talk radio and was my source for my last post.

[s_stabeler]

one thing about the navy not being able to haul the US army's stuff as well as the marine's- that is one hell of a security risk if you think about it, and I'm not thinking about terrorist attack. I'm thinking about if america ended up at war with another country with a strong navy ( britain comes to mind, if Blair wasn't basically a US puppet, it seems. the Royal Navy might have some issues, but can still pack some big clout against other navies) then a blockade of america would then mean that it would not be able to invade another country, so then, said country could be massing troops, then, it'd be damn difficult to defend against an assault. as for this, personally I have mixed feelings. remember, this is a UK company being taken over by a foreign company, and the US seem to have the gall to say that can't happen just because some US ports are involved the deal? i'd say tha is a little iffy myself. it is the loading/unloading of ships ONLY, and also, OK, probably someshipping of goods, if they use the situation to heir advantage. I'd say let it go through.

[Georgie]

I wouldn't let those Arabs touch our ports, knowing their recent history. It's bad enough that PNO had operated them before this, but to give it over to a bunch of Arabs?

In the eyes of a strategist, certain things on the map catch one's attention immediately. The ports are very important to a strategist as it is an opening, etc..... We have no business letting other countries handle our ports for us.

You'd be surprised how many foreign countries or entities own/run our stuff in this country.

[Che]

Coast Guard is in charge of security of the ships... until they dock.

Customs controls security, until the containers/freight are unloaded.

The UAE gov't-owned company is in charge of security for the actual terminal.

They will be responsible for vetting, hiring and firing all the security guards for the terminals under their control.

Where is this not a security issue.

Plus, the deal is a violation of US law.

The procedures, as established by Congress, where not followed in granting this sell-out of the American people.

[JuntaJoe]

s_stabeler wrote: one thing about the navy not being able to haul the US army's stuff as well as the marine's- that is one hell of a security risk if you think about it..........


Then you don't know about Britain or any other country with a fair sized army.

Virtually no country with a real army has the tonnage capacity in their navy to cart the other around.


That is the point of having Marines. You load up your army on civilian transport and have the navy escort the ships. Then you send in the Marines first to create a landing zone that can accept those civilian ships safely.

As for blockading our civilian ships, that's what your navy and coastal forces are for. They will blast a hole through the blockage so the civilian shipping can resume.




Ok, time to address the Arab issue. As a country, the UAE is a large partner to our American military. When the Saudis got noisy about us being there, the UAE built the LARGEST naval port for American military ships outside of America. They gave us huge tracts of land to build monster air and ground force bases. They do spying for us in the region and send us tons of intel. I would not even be surprised if they let us run some of those "secret" prisons on their soil. The UAE government is ok in my book. The UAE government is also the controlling partner in this company. And considering they already run over 100 ports around the world, I'd say they have a solid track record.

But we still haven't vetted their proceedures properly. What works at a neutral port in India will certainly not work here.

Furthermore, just because the top management is our friends doesn't mean the entire rank and file personnel group is the same. There must be stringent proceedures on which of their personnel get to come here and manage things. An entirely new screening system must be developed by them AND us to ensure everyone involved in the operations is not a security risk and daily operations proceedures are not made available to outside entities of any sort. Finally, this company should be required to hire American based security for their terminals.

We need to start from scratch and build up everything needed to allow this corporation to run this operation safely.

Nor can we simply expect than an American firm take the deal over instead. The sad fact is that there are probably only 3 American firms large enough to manage an operation this size. Haliburton and Betchel are the only public companies and they aren't exactly in favor right now with the American public. Someone would undoubtedly scream about a sweetheart deal from the VP. Koch Industries is possibly the only other American firm capable of running this. Two problems with that. Koch has never run port operations and they are a privately owned firm. You can't make them do anything they don't want to do. That's not enough leverage to make them come to heel if we catch them doing something wrong. We are stuck in a situation where foriegn firms are the only ones capable of doing this job.

There's another nasty surprise if we pull the contract. We would be forced to pay the UAE damages. We already permitted the Brit company to have the lease years ago. It was signed, sealed, delivered, and we cashed the royalty checks already. The UAE simply bought out the Brit firm and effectively already own the lease. So after we pay them damages then we will be required by trade law to put the bid out for a new contract on the open market. Guess who might make the lowest bid? The Chinese!

Personally, I think we are too far down the path to simply ashcan the whole deal. What we need to do is rebuild the deal from the ground up so that our safety is ensured. As an ally of the US, what could the UAE say to that proposal? Nothing but praise if they are our true allies.


So let's cut the spin and hype that has surrounded this whole thing since it flared up and roll up our sleeves. We need to rebuild this contract properly so we don't burn an ally, avoid a sticky contract breaking, and keep ourselves safe. Holding up a placard trying to inflame this further won't keep us one iota safer. Let the politicians go earn a popularity vote somewhere else.

[JuntaJoe]

Credit where credit is due:


UAE Gave $100 Million for Katrina Relief

February 23, 2006 9:30 PM EST

WASHINGTON - Weeks before one of its companies sought U.S. approval for its ports deal, the United Arab Emirates contributed $100 million to help victims of Hurricane Katrina, officials confirmed Thursday.

The Bush administration said the money it received from the United Arab Emirates was nearly four times as much as it received from all other countries combined. Other countries, including some in the Middle East, also pledged large contributions but have not yet sent the money.

The White House said the $100 million for storm victims demonstrates the close relationship between the two governments now caught in a firestorm over the potential security risks of state-owned Dubai Ports World running operations at six major U.S. ports.

The money from the United Arab Emirates was previously described by the State Department only as a "very large" contribution. The White House said so far it has received $126 million in international donations, including the UAE money.

The administration said there was no connection between the request for U.S. approval of the $6.8 billion ports deal and the UAE contribution. It disclosed details about the donation to support President Bush's description of the nations as important allies.

"There was no connection between the two events," said Adam Ereli, the deputy State Department spokesman.

Robert Kimmitt, deputy secretary at the Treasury Department, told senators Thursday that Dubai Ports World first approached U.S. officials Oct. 17 to discuss a proposed purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which runs significant operations at six large U.S. ports.

Kimmitt said the company informally approached Treasury officials to discuss preliminary stages of the purchase. A formal review of the proposed sale started on Dec. 16, Kimmitt told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The United Arab Emirates sent its $100 million Katrina donation on Sept. 21 using an electronic transfer to an account at the State Department, the White House said. Two-thirds of the money was given to the Federal Emergency Management Agency to help coordinate aid to 100,000 families. The rest was sent to the Education Department to help rebuild schools and universities near New Orleans that were damaged by the storm.

Copyright 2005 Associated Press.

[s_stabeler]

Junta, as for america's navy blasting the way through the brittish Royal Navy, that could make me laugh to be honest. there are a number of reasons why I think america would have trouble:
1. professionalism. last time I checked, america went to an all-professional army in 1975. britain has very rarely NOT had a professional army, navy, air force, etc. Britain has the enifit of experiance, as weight of numbers cannot always defeat professional soldiers. look at Iraq.
2. this is related to the first. the RAF. now, Ok the germans nearly destroyed the RAF in the second world war, but that was mainly due to the fact they had skill on their side. it was mainly the sheer grit of the brittish that allowed victory. now, the RAF has good pilots ( I might point out most of the friendly fire incidents in Iraq were american AA firing on brittish planes) and could probably knock out a fair few american ships (we do have aircraft carriers, I think) which might turn the tide.
3. security of supplies to a blockade. several time sin history, britain's enemies have ried to attack supply shops. evey time, they have failed. why? becuase we were bale to defeat them in combat ship-to-ship.
4. length can keep up a blockade economically. britain has the advantage of being able relatively easily to keep up a blockade without damaging the economy. as it can import food and such relatively easily ( I think it is a net exporer, though), while I doubt the US couldsurvive without any foriegn goods for long. remember, that ould mean no money from other governments at all in a successful blockade, not even if other countries bought dollars. feasibly, the american economy would get into trouble, as i doubt the government can do away with trade income.

[JuntaJoe]

We are diverging from the topic, Stabler, but I'll quickly set your mind at ease.

America's Navy dwarfs the Brit Navy by literally hundreds of capable warships. Nor has any country remotely have a Coast Guard the size we do.

America is virtually impervious to naval blockade these days. The logistics train to cover both coasts would wear out any navy within weeks without firing a shot.

Britain could combine all their carriers in one battle group and be hard pressed to destroy even one of our eight carrier groups. Brit carriers are termed "pocket" carriers that look like toys next to our Nimitz class carriers. Then you have the fact that the only other warships capable of engaging us are Britain's destroyers and cruisers. Of that class only Britain's Aegis class ships are capable of going head to head. And who do you think designed and built Britain's Aegis class ships? America. We designed them, built them, are the masters of them, and we have a lot more than Britain. I'd go so far as to say that if we sunk your very few carriers that our navy could retire and let our Coast Guard finish the battle.

No country in the world individually can match our navy or have enough assets to block the over 100 significant American ports. I'd venture to say it would take the collective navies of the entire planet to subdue our Navy and lock down our ports for an extended period.

If somehow that event happened then we would quit sending out food. Within a month, over 2 billion people on earth would be in starvation mode. America is a vast importer, but only in consumer goods that are not essential to life. Only energy is our weak spot. We have domestic sources for food, textiles, metals, and rare chemicals in abundance. This country is surprisingly self contained when you remove our creature comforts from the equation. Only Russia is capable of making the same boast and that assumes they recapture the Ukraine willingly. The Ukrainians might have something objectionable to say about that event.

I'm sorry, Stabler, but the sun over English Empire naval hegemony set about 40 years ago for good. America fears no one on the high seas. And remember that it takes only one boomer sub filled with Tridents to hold the entire world hostage to nuclear winter if we are pushed far enough. Given that we always have several of our boomers out of port at all times ensures we hold the fate of humanity in our hands every day. Just be thankful we are benevolent.


Now that that issue is settled, does anyone wish to discuss the port issue again?

[bannie]

lol @ Joe. I was going to reply to this earlier but thought Id leave it to you

[bannie]

Ok, getting back on topic....

I did notice that after this deal hit the news, gas prices were down


In fact there was a station by my friends house that was under $2


Thats still way too much however. I remeber a time when my mom paid $.70 for a gallon

(cue older members "when I was your age..." :P )

[Maus]

*off topic*

Indeed, at work today I was trying to envision the dangling soft supply-train strung out from Britain to a force responsible for interdicting the entire west coast... no matter how plucky the British lads are, the boys at Coronado are sitting right on top of the nation's railheads. 8)

[JuntaJoe]

Given inflation, gas prices have never been cheaper in our history.

This is a well proven fact that is ignored by the media because they have a tool to inflame the ignorant masses and don't wish to lose it.

The drop in oil prices was due to Nigeria "fixing" that problem they had in their oil fields and wasn't related to the Middle East.