PDA

View Full Version : This Is Nuts



Gold9472
02-19-2006, 01:27 AM
This is nuts

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/archive/s_425012.html

Sunday, February 19, 2006

The Bush administration is defending a $6.8 billion private transaction giving control of six major American ports to a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates (UAE). How big is that hole in the administration's head?

Dubai Ports World is buying Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. of London. The former would take over ports in Philadelphia, New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, Miami and New Orleans. The UAE had ties to the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers.

Incredibly, this deal was rubber-stamped by the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States. It is composed of representatives from the U.S. Departments of Treasury, Defense, Justice, Commerce, State and Homeland Security.

The United States' official position is that the UAE is an important ally in our war on terrorism. But this loose federation of seven states on the Saudi peninsula was an operational and financial base for the 9/11 attackers.

This country stood idly by as Hutchison Whampoa, with direct ties to China's military, gained control of port operations on the Panama and Suez canals -- shipping links vital to worldwide commerce and choke points quite strategic militarily. Now, we're welcoming with open arms, and on our own shores, those who aided and abetted our enemy.

This nutty deal is a risk to our national security. Everything that can be done should be done to scuttle it.

Gold9472
02-19-2006, 10:48 AM
Fear Escalates on Foreign Control of Ports

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060218/ap_on_go_co/port_security

By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer Sat Feb 18, 5:29 PM ET

WASHINGTON - A New Jersey congressman said Saturday he wants to require that security officials at U.S. ports be American citizens to prevent overseas companies operating shipping facilities here from hiring foreigners in such sensitive positions.

Republican Frank A. LoBiondo, chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, cited "significant" security concerns over a $6.8 billion sale that gives a company in the United Arab Emirates control over operations at six major American ports.

LoBiondo said he wants the new mandatory citizenship requirements approved by Congress and President Bush before state-owned Dubai Ports World completes its pending purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

The British company, the world's fourth-largest ports company, runs major commercial operations at shipping terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

The Bush administration earlier approved the deal, which has drawn escalating criticism by lawmakers who maintain the United Arab Emirates is not consistent in its support of U.S. terrorism-fighting efforts.

Caught by surprise over the breadth of concerns expressed in the United States, Dubai Ports World 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 — was expected to travel to Washington soon for meetings on Capitol Hill and elsewhere.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration is defending its approval of the sale, and strongly resisting 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.

Bush visited the port in Tampa, Fla., on Friday but did not mention the dispute. Bush said an important element of defeating terrorism was taking precautions domestically and working with local 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."

But one of those mayors, Martin O'Malley of Baltimore, criticized Bush's approval of the ports deal as an "outrageous, reckless and irresponsible decision" and urged the president to reconsider.

O'Malley, co-chairman of the U.S. Conference of Mayors' Task Force on Homeland Security, also is seeking the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in Maryland.

"I think that they did not take into account the vulnerability of America's ports," O'Malley said Saturday in a telephone interview. "I think Congress needs to have further hearings on these things."

He said only 5 percent of the shipments into the nation's ports are inspected, calling that a stark contrast to Hong Kong, which inspects 100 percent of shipments.

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 Sunday during a press conference with Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), a leading critic of the sale. Schumer, D-N.Y., said he is dubious any assurances can justify the UAE's involvement in American ports.

Schumer and others 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 now are no citizenship requirements, which he said permits foreign companies with a stake in U.S. 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.

Good Doctor HST
02-19-2006, 01:22 PM
Just further proof that truth is stranger than fiction. Somebody that knows somebody is making out financially in this deal. There's no other explanation.

Gold9472
02-19-2006, 01:22 PM
Our Government is "occupied".

Gold9472
02-19-2006, 06:10 PM
Senator urges Bush to intervene in Dubai contract award

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local/state/hc-19155013.apds.m0072.bc-ct--portfeb19,0,6724862.story?coll=hc-headlines-local-wire

Associated Press
Published February 19 2006

NEW YORK -- U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer joined some family members of Sept. 11 victims Sunday to urge President Bush to personally intervene to block a port security contract with a Persian Gulf state.

"This is a deal that was approved in the dark of night and needs to see the light of day," Schumer told a news conference on a Manhattan pier on New York Harbor. The president "should override the agreement and conduct a special investigation into the matter," Schumer said.

The senator also called for a 90-day inquiry into all port contracts involving foreign governments.

"In a post 9-11 world we can't be too careful. We cannot slide into complacency," said Schumer, who has contended for years that U.S. cargo ports remain the nation's most vulnerable targets for terrorism.

He said the Committee on Foreign Investment, which approved the $6.8 billion agreement allowing Dubai Ports World to oversee operations at six U.S. ports including New York and New Jersey, had "proven itself unreliable" on issues of national security. Currently only 5 percent of cargo containers entering U.S. ports are subjected to security inspection, Schumer said.

Earlier Sunday, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff defended the agreement, saying the United Arab Emirates company had met "assurances" that it was "appropriate from a national security standpoint."

Schumer noted that banks in Dubai had laundered terrorist money and that the country had links to two Sept. 11 hijackers.

Peter Gadiel, of Kent, Conn., whose son, James, was killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, World Trade Center attack, said he was deeply disturbed by the ports deal.

"I'm a lifelong Republican and I think the President's gone insane," said Gadiel, director of a group called 9/11 Families for a Secure America.

Gold9472
02-19-2006, 08:28 PM
Lawmakers Decry Ports Takeover

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060219/ap_on_go_co/port_security

By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 32 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - 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 (news, bio, voting record), R-N.Y., told The Associated Press.

"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-Qaida or someone else, how are they going to guard against corruption?" King said.

King spoke in response to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff's comments Sunday about conditions of the sale. King said he learned about the government's terms for approving the sale from meetings with senior Bush administration officials.

Chertoff defended the security review of Dubai Ports World of the United Arab Emirates, the company given permission to take over the port operations. Chertoff said the government typically builds in "certain conditions or requirements that the company has to agree to make sure we address the national security concerns." But Chertoff declined to discuss specifics saying that information is classified.

"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 DP World, a state-owned business. Peninsular and Oriental runs major commercial operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

A Miami company, Continental Stevedoring & Terminals Inc., has filed suit in a Florida court challenging the deal. A subsidiary of Eller & Company Inc., the Miami company maintains it the suit disclosed Saturday evening that it will become an "involuntary partner" with Dubai's government under the sale.

"We are aware of the lawsuit, but cannot comment until our legal teams have a chance to review it," Michael Seymour, president of the North American arm of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation, said Sunday in the company's initial response to the lawsuit.

He noted that his company "is itself a foreign-owned terminal operator that has long worked with U.S. government officials in charge of security at the ports to meet all U.S. government standards, as do other foreign companies that currently operate ports in the United States."

"We are confident that the DP World purchase will ensure that our operations continue to meet all relevant standards in the U.S. through ongoing collaboration between the port operators and American, British, Australian and port security officials throughout the world," Seymour said in a statement telephoned to the AP.

Lawmakers from both parties are questioning the sale 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.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record), on CBS' "Face the Nation," said, "It is ridiculous to say you're taking secret steps to make sure that it's OK for a nation that had ties to 9/11, (to) take over part of our port operations in many of our largest ports. This has to stop."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Arab journalists in an interview Friday at the State Department, that it was "the considered opinion of the U.S. government that this can go forward." She pledged to work with Congress because "perhaps people will need better explanation and will need to understand some of the process that we have gone through."

At least one Senate oversight hearing is planned for later this month.

"Congress is welcome to look at this and can get classified briefings," Chertoff told CNN's "Late Edition." "We have to balance the paramount urgency of security against the fact that we still want to have a robust global trading system," he added.

Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., who is working on legislation to prohibit companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from running port operation in the U.S., said Chertoff's comments showed him that the administration "just does not get it."

Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y. joined some family members of Sept. 11 victims at a news conference Sunday to urge President Bush to personally intervene. The president "should override the agreement and conduct a special investigation into the matter," Schumer said.

Dubai Ports World should not be excluded automatically from such a deal because it is based in the UAE, Chertoff said.

Critics have cited the UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. In addition, they contend the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist.

Dubai Ports World has said it intends to "maintain and, where appropriate, enhance current security arrangements." The UAE's foreign minister has described his country as an important U.S. ally in fighting terrorism.

"I would hope that our friends in Abu Dhabi would not be offended by the fact that in our democracy, we debate these things," Rice said in the interview with the Arab journalists.

PhilosophyGenius
02-20-2006, 01:47 AM
I'd love to see a Saudi company take over airport security. That would be hilarious!


(exept if I'm on the plane)

Gold9472
02-20-2006, 09:40 AM
'President's gone insane' – 9/11 dad

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/393038p-333284c.html

BY JIMMY VIELKIND
DAILY NEWS WRITER
2/20/2006

Peter Gadiel just doesn't get it.

How, asks Gadiel, whose son James died in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, can a company owned by a terror-linked country get control of our nation's ports?

"I'm a lifelong Republican and I think the President's gone insane," said Gadiel, 58, who heads 9/11 Families for a Secure America.

Two of the 19 9/11 hijackers were citizens of Dubai, the Arab emirate whose bid to run ports in New York, New Jersey and four other cities was okayed by the White House even though investigators have found signs that money used to finance terrorism flowed through Dubai banks.

"How the hell could this happen?" fumed Bill Doyle, 58, a retired Staten Island stockbroker whose son Joseph also died when the Trade Center fell.

"We're not securing our country in any way by selling our ports to foreigners," he said.

Gadiel and Doyle stood with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) yesterday at the harbor to express their outrage.

Bruse DeCell, 55, whose son-in-law died in the attacks, said that homeland security should be the highest concern when approving the activities of foreign business interests.

"This administration is putting the selling of our country on a fast track," he said. "There are a lot of loose ends that caused 9/11 to happen. I'm trying to close them."

Only 5% of the cargo containers entering U.S. ports are inspected, said Schumer, who has called for upgrades in port security for years.

Gold9472
02-20-2006, 08:08 PM
Lawmakers at odds over Arab control of ports
Members of Congress, Bush administration disagree on security question

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11188272/

Updated: 11:21 a.m. ET Feb. 20, 2006

WASHINGTON - Members of Congress and the Bush administration are at odds over whether security is compromised by an Arab company’s takeover of operations at six major American seaports.

Some lawmakers expressed concern Sunday that the safeguards are insufficient to thwart infiltration of the vital facilities by terrorists.

At issue is the purchase last week of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., by Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates, or UAE. Peninsular and Oriental runs major commercial operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff defended the U.S. security review of DP World in various television interviews Sunday.

“We have a very disciplined process, it’s a classified process, for reviewing any acquisition by a foreign company of assets that we consider relevant to national security,” Chertoff told Tim Russert on “ Meet the Press .”

The government typically builds in “certain conditions or requirements that the company has to agree to make sure we address the national security concerns,” he said, but added that details were classified.

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said later he wasn’t as sure.

“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,” King told The Associated Press.

“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-Qaida or someone else? How are they going to guard against corruption?” King said.

Critics have cited the UAE’s history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. In addition, they contend the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist.

A Miami company, Continental Stevedoring & Terminals Inc., has filed suit in a Florida court challenging the deal. A subsidiary of Eller & Company Inc., Continental maintains it will become an “involuntary partner” with Dubai’s government under the sale.

Michael Seymour, president of the North American arm of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation, said in a statement that company lawyers would have to examine the lawsuit before he could comment on it.

He noted, however, that his company “is itself a foreign-owned terminal operator that has long worked with U.S. government officials in charge of security at the ports to meet all U.S. government standards, as do other foreign companies that currently operate ports in the United States.”

“We are confident that the DP World purchase will ensure that our operations continue to meet all relevant standards in the U.S. through ongoing collaboration between the port operators and American, British, Australian and port security officials throughout the world,” Seymour said.

Lawmakers from both parties questioned the sale 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,” he said.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., told CBS’ “Face the Nation”:

“It is ridiculous to say you’re taking secret steps to make sure that it’s OK for a nation that had ties to 9/11, (to) take over part of our port operations in many of our largest ports. This has to stop.”

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Arab journalists Friday at the State Department, that it was “the considered opinion of the U.S. government that this can go forward.” She pledged to work with Congress because “perhaps people will need better explanation and will need to understand some of the process that we have gone through.”

At least one Senate oversight hearing is planned for later this month.

“Congress is welcome to look at this and can get classified briefings,” Chertoff told CNN’s “Late Edition.” “We have to balance the paramount urgency of security against the fact that we still want to have a robust global trading system.”

Gold9472
02-20-2006, 09:08 PM
US move to block takeover of P&O on security grounds

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1713400,00.html

David Teather in New York and Cosima Marriner
Monday February 20, 2006
The Guardian

A Miami ports company has taken legal action to block the takeover of Britain's P&O by a state-owned business from the United Arab Emirates, citing national security concerns. The suit has been filed amid a growing political storm in Washington about the takeover.

On Friday, Democratic senators Hillary Clinton and Robert Menéndez introduced legislation aimed at preventing the sale. Their bill would ban companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from acquiring US port operations.

"We wouldn't turn the border patrol or the customs service over to a foreign government, and we can't afford to turn our ports over to one either," Mr Menéndez said in statement.

P&O, the world's fourth largest ports company, runs commercial operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia - some of the busiest shipping terminals in the US.

The Miami port is a hub for cruise ships carrying more than six million people a year and more than 1m cargo containers. The local company Continental Stevedoring & Terminals works alongside P&O in the city. In its suit filed in a Florida court, the firm said the sale of P&O to Dubai Ports World was prohibited under its partnership agreement. It is also seeking more than $10m (£5.7m) in damages from P&O.

A spokeswoman for P&O and DP World refused to comment on the specifics of the lawsuit. She said: "Clearly, change of control was a key focus of the due diligence process for both P&O and DP World. We're confident all issues have been satisfactorily addressed."

The Bush administration has approved the P&O takeover. Defending the decision, state department spokesman Sean McCormack on Friday described the UAE as a "long-standing friend and ally".

But opposition to the takeover is growing. Jersey congressman Frank LoBiondo on Saturday proposed a mandatory requirement that all security officials at US ports be American citizens. Mr LoBiondo, chairman of the coast guard and maritime transportation subcommittee, said the rule would prevent foreign nationals from holding potentially sensitive jobs.

Baltimore mayor Martin O'Malley said the federal administration's approval was an "outrageous, reckless and irresponsible decision" and urged the president to reconsider.

Democratic senator Charles Schumer was scheduled to hold a press conference yesterday with family members of victims in the September 11 terrorist attacks to lobby against the deal.

A senate oversight hearing on the takeover is planned for this month. A debate over perceived lax security standards at US ports had been rumbling since the September 11 attacks. Only about 5% of containers are examined on arrival in the US.

DP World has sought to calm nerves and sent advisers to meet port officials along the US east coast. It also plans to send its chief operating officer, the American shipping executive Edward Bilkey, to meet important figures in Washington this week. In a statement to Bloomberg News, the UAE foreign minister, Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahyan, said concerns in Washington were "understandable", but added: "We want to make clear we have also worked very closely with the US in a number of issues especially when it comes to combating terrorism, prior to and post September 11."

DP World's victory after a three-month battle for Britain's most famous maritime company also provoked controversy in the UK.

Gold9472
02-20-2006, 10:35 PM
Concern grows for Arabs running U.S. Ports
Rep. Peter King (R-NY.) discusses implications and risks to nation

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11461419/

Updated: 1:21 p.m. ET Feb. 20, 2006

Citing terrorism concerns, U.S. lawmakers are urging the Bush administration to review the security implications of a $6 billion deal that granted an Arab company control over key ports in six American cities. Those include New York, Baltimore, and Miami.

The Department of Homeland Security says the company, P&O by Dubai Ports Inc., has a solid security record and poses no risk. But not everyone is so certain, Congressman Peter King, a Republican of New York, who‘s also the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. Congressman King joined Tucker Carlson to discuss his concerns.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST, 'THE SITUATION: This just seems like such an obviously bad idea, giving a company based in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates, the city where a lot of the 9/11 hijackers essentially, had their home bases, control over six U.S. ports. Whose idea was this and is this going to happen?

REP. PETER KING ®, NEW YORK: Well, the contract was originally held by a British company, and then this United Arab Emirates company has bought them out. And now under a law that was passed back in 1988, it goes to a committee run by the Treasury Department to determine whether or not it affects America‘s national security.

The problem was this law was passed in a time when they were trying to encourage foreign investment. There‘s really not near enough vetting or investigation that goes on as far as the company itself.

For instance, they have 20, 25 days to make the decision. You can‘t possibly do a thorough investigation during that period of time. My understanding of what happens is they ask the intelligence committee, is there anything on file against this group. Are you asking them for any particular reason and they say no.

But the fact is, that doesn‘t go into who‘s in the management, who‘s in the middle-management. What all the hiring practices are? I‘ve heard from a number of people, for instance, in that port in Dubai itself, there‘s been corruption there. There‘s been parts sent to Iran. There‘s been a large al Qaeda presence in the United Arab Emirates, even though they are working with us in the war against terrorism.

CARLSON: Right. There‘s no question. There‘s no question that‘s true. In fact nuclear components from the Pakistani nuclear society, A.Q. Khan, moved through Dubai on their way to Iran and North Korea. Dubai is a wonderful city, one of my favorite cities, but it‘s not a secure city, and everybody knows that.

KING: And this company also had jurisdiction over that port. So if that was allowed to go on when they had control of that port, what are they doing over in the United States?

I just found out earlier today, for instance, that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey wasn‘t even told about this until the last several days.

Which again, my point is they did not fully investigate it. They did not fully vet it. Because this is not geared toward a homeland security or counterterrorism type of investigation. What they look at mainly is the financing end of it, and if there‘s nothing outrageously wrong or nothing that waves a bright red flag they go ahead with the deal.

And again, this is a post—this is a pre-9/11 law they‘re adapting to—we live in the post-9/11 world. We can‘t let this to go forward. We can‘t allow the major ports in our country to be under the control of a company which comes out of Dubai, which comes out of the United Arab Emirates and which has not been fully investigated and fully vetted.

CARLSON: Well, then why—everything you‘ve said makes complete and obvious sense. Why would the Bush administration, which I think for all its faults does take terrorism seriously, why would they sign off on this? Why would they endorse this? It doesn‘t make sense.

KING: I think it was too far along. I think what happened was it was done, again, under the control of the Treasury Department, which these people meant well, but I don‘t think they were looking at it from the security point of view to the extent they should have.

It‘s now become almost a fait accompli. And because this is a government-owned company the administration probably feels that this could create a diplomatic incident with the United Arab Emirates.

Having said that, I‘ve spoken to people in the White House. I spoke to them yesterday. And I told them I was going to raise these issues and I told them how important it was that this go forward. So I don‘t know—I don‘t know if the president has been made fully aware of this yet. I think this is still at a middle level. It‘s in the White House itself now, but I don‘t think this has reached the top levels. I don‘t think they‘re fully aware of the implications of this.

And I can tell you, on Capitol Hill, very responsible people from the right and the left and the center from both parties are very concerned over this, especially those of us who come from New York. We saw what happened on September 11.

No one ever wants to go through that again. And to me, this is just one of those things. How would you explain to a future 9/11 Commission how you allowed this company coming out of this country with this background to get this contract over our ports, which are always going to be vulnerable, no matter how...?

CARLSON: You could not explain that. And for that reason I predict you will be able to stop this. I predict this will not happen. They can‘t stand the political heat, and they shouldn‘t. So good for you, Congressman Pete King of New York. Thanks for doing this.

KING: Tucker, thank you.

Gold9472
02-20-2006, 10:42 PM
UAE Would Also Control Shipments of Military Equipment For The U.S. Army

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/20/uae-military-equipment/

2/20/2006

There is bipartisan concern about the Bush administration’s decision to outsource the operation of six of the nation’s largest ports to a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) because of that nation’s troubling ties to international terrorism. The sale of P&O to Dubai World Ports would give the state-owned company control of “the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.”

A major part of the story, however, has been mostly overlooked. The company, Dubai Ports World, would also control the movement of military equipment on behalf of the U.S. Army through two other ports. From today’s edition of the British paper Lloyd’s List:

[P&O] has just renewed a contract with the United States Surface Deployment and Distribution Command to provide stevedoring [loading and unloading] of military equipment at the Texan ports of Beaumont and Corpus Christi through 2010.

According to the journal Army Logistician “Almost 40 percent of the Army cargo deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom flows through these two ports.”

Thus, the sale would give a country that has been “a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia” direct control over substantial quantities U.S. military equipment.

Gold9472
02-21-2006, 04:40 PM
BUSH SAYS HE WOULD VETO LEGISLATION TO STOP DUBAI PORT DEAL

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/WBT004834.htm

21 Feb 2006 20:28:30 GMT

ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE, Feb 21 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush said on Tuesday that a deal for a state-owned Dubai company to manage major U.S. ports should go forward and will not jeopardize U.S. security.

Bush told reporters traveling back to Washington with him from Colorado that he would veto legislation to stop the deal from going through.

"After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward," Bush said. He added that if the U.S. Congress passed a law to stop the deal, "I'll deal with it with a veto."

Gold9472
02-21-2006, 05:31 PM
BushCo. Has Ties To UAE Port Company

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/393375p-333478c.html

BY MICHAEL McAULIFF
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
2/21/2006

WASHINGTON - The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House.

One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose agency heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark's container port.

Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet.

The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.

The ties raised more concerns about the decision to give port control to a company owned by a nation linked to the 9/11 hijackers.

"The more you look at this deal, the more the deal is called into question," said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who said the deal was rubber-stamped in advance - even before DP World formally agreed to buy London's P&O port company.

Besides operations in New York and Jersey, Dubai would also run port facilities in Philadelphia, New Orleans, Baltimore and Miami.

The political fallout over the deal only grows.

"It's particularly troubling that the United States would turn over its port security not only to a foreign company, but a state-owned one," said western New York's Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee. Reynolds is responsible for helping Republicans keep their majority in the House.

Snow's Treasury Department runs the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., which includes 11 other agencies.

"It always raises flags" when administration officials have ties to a firm, Rep. Vito Fossella (R-S.I.) said, but insisted that stopping the deal was more important.

The Daily News has learned that lawmakers also want to know if a detailed 45-day probe should have been conducted instead of one that lasted no more than 25 days.

According to a 1993 congressional measure, the longer review is mandated when the company is owned by a foreign government and the purchase "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."

Congressional sources said the President has until March 2 to trigger that harder look.

"The most important thing is for someone to explain how this is consistent with our national security," Fossella said.

Gold9472
02-21-2006, 08:34 PM
Transcript: Bush says he'll back port deal, despite GOP unrest

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Transcript_Bush_says_hell_back_port_0221.html

Published: February 21, 2006

PRESIDENT BUSH: (In progress) -- change how we use energy. I'm very encouraged by the technology that I saw and inspired by the scientists and engineers and -- that are working on these new technologies.

I also want to address another issue I just talked to the press about on Air Force One, and that is this issue of a company out of the UAE purchasing the right to manage some ports in the United States from a British company.

First of all, this is a private transaction, but it -- according to law, the government's required to make sure this transaction does not in any way jeopardize the security of the country. And so the people responsible in our government have reviewed this transaction. The transaction should go forward, in my judgment. If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward.

The company has been cooperative with the United States government. The company will not manage port security. The security of our ports will be -- continue to be managed by the Coast Guard and Customs. The company is from a country that has been cooperative in the war on terror, been an ally in the war on terror.

The company operates ports in different countries around the world, ports from which cargo has been sent to the United States on a regular basis.

I think it sends a terrible signal to friends around the world that it's okay for a company from one country to manage the port, but not a country that is -- plays by the rules and has got a good track record, from another part of the world, can't manage the port.

And so, look, I can understand why some in Congress have raised questions about whether or not our country will be less secure as a result of this transaction. But they need to know that our government has looked at this issue and looked at it carefully. Again, I repeat, if there was any question as to whether or not this country would be less safe as a result of the transaction, it wouldn't go forward. But I also want to repeat something again, and that is, this is a company that has played by the rules, that has been cooperative with the United States, from a country that's an ally in the war on terror, and it would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through.

I want to thank you for your interest in the subject.

Q Are some in Congress demagoging, then? Is Congress demagoging?

Q Will you veto -- (inaudible) -- legislation?

(No response as the president leaves the microphone.)

END.

Gold9472
02-21-2006, 09:13 PM
DP WORLD EXECUTIVE NOMINATED FOR PRESITIGOUS US GOVT POSITION

http://www.dpiterminals.com/fullnews.asp?NewsID=39

Dubai, 24 January 2006: - Global ports operator DP World today welcomed news that one of its senior executives, Dave Sanborn, has been nominated by US President George W. Bush to serve as Maritime Administrator a key transportation appointment reporting directly to Norman Mineta the Secretary of Transportation and Cabinet Member.

The White House has issued a statement from Washington DC announcing the nomination. The confirmation process will begin in February.

Mr Sanborn currently holds the position of Director of Operations for Europe and Latin America for the Dubai-based company

Mohammed Sharaf, CEO, DP World said:

“While we are sorry to lose such an experienced and capable executive, it is exactly those qualities that will make Dave an effective administrator for MarAd. We are proud of Dave’s selection and pleased that the Bush Administration found such a capable executive. We wish him all the best in his new role.”

Ted Bilkey, Chief Operating Officer, DP World said:

“Dave’s decades of experience in markets around the world, together with his passion for the industry and commitment to its development, will allow him to make a positive contribution to the work of the Maritime Administration. We wish him well for the future.”

Mr Sanborn, a graduate of The United States Merchant Maritime Academy, joined DP World in 2005. He previously held senior roles with shipping lines CMA-CGM (Americas), APL Ltd and Sea-Land and has been based, besides the US, in Brazil, Europe, Hong Kong and Dubai during his career. He has also served in the US Naval Reserve.

Mr Sanborn is due to take up his new role based in Washington DC later in 2006.

-- ENDS --

For further information please contact:

Bell Pottinger Communications

Dubai:
Tom Mollo
+9714 367 2256 +9715 0550 4203
tmollo@bell-pottinger.co.uk

London:
Dan de Belder
+44 207 861 3232
ddebelder@bell-pottinger.co.uk

Notes for the editor:

DP World is a leading global port operator with a portfolio of operations in Asia, Australia, Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East. The company has 22 container terminals in 15 countries.

DP World is the result of the integration of Dubai Ports Authority (“DPA”) and DPI Terminals (“DPI”) in September 2005. This new entity continues the tremendous success of the DPA and DPI businesses, which have been at the forefront of Dubai's extraordinary transformation into one of the world's leading trade and commerce hubs.

DP World manages the commercial and operational aspects of the port network, formerly developed and managed by DPA and DPI.

In 2005, the terminals operated by DP World handled an estimated 13 million TEU which include ports on five continents from the Americas to Asia.

DP World's unique cross-sector expertise offers solutions in all aspects of port operations, ultimately driving efficiency and financial returns for port users. DP World will continue to provide the same high level of service that customers have come to expect. DP World continues to provide a superior level of service to shipping lines at its flagship domestic operations of Port Rashid and Jebel Ali which has been voted “Best Seaport in the Middle East” for 10 consecutive years. Dubai is ranked as the 10th largest port operation in the world and DP World is the 7th largest global operator.

There are a number of significant projects in the pipeline that will strengthen the DP World network, including developments in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. In February 2005 an agreement with the Cochin Port Trust (CoPT) was signed to construct, develop and operate an international container transshipment terminal at Vallarpadam, Kochi, India. It is the largest single operator container terminal currently planned in India and the first in the country to operate in a special economic zone. The new terminal will make Kochi a key centre in the shipping world reducing India’s dependence on foreign ports to handle transshipment.

One cornerstone project, which underlines DP World’s position as a major player in Asia, is the development of Pusan Newport, South Korea. DP World has a 39.55% interest in and management contract for this 9-berth facility, which has a capacity of 5.5 million TEU. The first phase of this development was opened in January 2006.

In March 2005, DP World was awarded a 30 year concession to develop and operate the container terminal at the Port of Fujairah, in the UAE. This was followed in July 2005 by the awarding of a management contract for Mina Zayed Port, Abu Dhabi. These concessions will enable DP World to streamline operations at the major container facilities of the UAE, and further increase the choices available to its customers. In June 2005 DP World was short listed as preferred bidder to operate the container terminal at the Port of Aden.

In November 2005 DP World also announced agreements to develop new container terminals at Yarimca, Turkey and Qingdao, China.

On 29 November 2005, DP World announced the terms of a recommended cash offer to acquire all of the issued and to be issued Deferred Stock of the P&O Group. When completed, this deal will make DP World a top three global port operator.

DP World also has interests in logistics businesses in Hong Kong and China, notably ATL, the market leading logistics operator based at Kwai Chung, Hong Kong.

Gold9472
02-22-2006, 10:09 AM
http://www.msnbc.com/modules/wtc/moussaoui_indictment/default.asp?p=1&cp1=1

21. On or about June 29, 2000, $4,790 was wired from the United Arab Emirates ("UAE") to Marwan al-Shehhi (#175) in Manhattan.

22. On or about July 19, 2000, $9,985 was wired from UAE into a Florida SunTrust bank account in the names of Mohammed Atta (#11) and Marwan al-Shehhi (#175).

23. On or about July 26, 2000, in Germany, Ramzi Bin al-Shibh wired money to Marwan al-Shehhi (#175) in Florida.

24. On or about August 7, 2000, $9,485 was wired from UAE into a Florida SunTrust bank account in the names of Mohammed Atta (#11) and Marwan al-Shehhi (#175).

25. On or about August 30, 2000, $19,985 was wired from UAE into a Florida SunTrust bank account in the names of Mohammed Atta (#11) and Marwan al-Shehhi (#175).

26. On or about September 18, 2000, $69,985 was wired from UAE into a Florida SunTrust bank account in the names of Mohamed Atta (#11) and Marwan al-Shehhi (#175).

rayrayjones
02-22-2006, 02:05 PM
NOTE: this was the same process set up in Saudi Arabia that gave easy access to this country before 9-11

(Jon, you would have a better chance of getting people to notice this...plus you probably have one of the original articles about the Saudi express visa program)



check this out from the UAE website
http://uae.usembassy.gov/visit_the_usa.html



Visit the USA: Streamlined Visa Processing

PRESS RELEASE
February 14, 2006

The Department of State, the U.S. Embassy in Abu Dhabi and the Consulate General in Dubai have recently taken steps to further expedite visa processing for travel to the United States. An important part of this new streamlined procedure is the use of the Electronic Visa Application Form (EVAF). This form is now required for all Nonimmigrant Visa applications in order to expedite visa interviews and processing.

Use of the Electronic Visa Application Form (EVAF)

The EVAF is a simple, online internet application that allows visa applicants to fill out their visa applications on the internet. The use of the EVAF will result in shorter lines and waiting time since visa clerks will no longer need to manually enter visa application information.

Use of the EVAF is required for all Nonimmigrant Visa applications beginning March 1, 2006. After this date, the U.S. Embassy in Abu Dhabi and the U.S. Consulate in Dubai will no longer accept handwritten applications.

Other Steps to facilitate travel

In addition to the EVAF, the U.S. Government has taken other steps to facilitate travel to the U.S.:

• Applicants for student visas and emergency medical cases do not require appointments in Abu Dhabi. Student and emergency medical cases are given expedited priority appointments in Dubai.

• Students can apply for visas up to 120 days before they begin their studies.

• The average wait for a Non-Immigrant Visa appointment has been reduced to 1-2 days in Abu Dhabi and 5-6 days in Dubai. Most approved visas are ready within 24 hours; the remainder normally are completed within 2 weeks.

For visa application information and for a link to EVAF, please go to:

http://uae.usembassy.gov/
or
http://dubai.usconsulate.gov (http://dubai.usconsulate.gov/)
and click on “Visas to the U.S.”

Filling out the application online does NOT mean the application has been transmitted to the Embassy or Consulate. The application must be printed out and display a BARCODE to indicate that the application is complete. The application with barcode – the completed EVAF – then must be brought to the Consular Section on the scheduled interview day. Visa applicants presenting handwritten applications or applications filled out in any way other than EVAF cannot be interviewed and will have to make a new appointment.

For questions, please contact Embassy Abu Dhabi and Consulate General Dubai by email.

Abu Dhabi email address: consularabudha@state.gov
Dubai email address: dubaivisaenquiry@state.gov

Telephone inquiries for the U.S. Embassy in Abu Dhabi are accepted between 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on Saturday thru Wednesday, on (+971 - (0)2-414-2662.) The U.S. Consulate General in Dubai accepts visa-related inquiries by telephone (+971-(0)4-311-6000) on Saturdays, Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays between 3 and 4 p.m., as well as on Sundays between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.

rayrayjones
02-22-2006, 02:08 PM
http://www.msnbc.com/modules/wtc/moussaoui_indictment/default.asp?p=1&cp1=1

21. On or about June 29, 2000, $4,790 was wired from the United Arab Emirates ("UAE") to Marwan al-Shehhi (#175) in Manhattan.

22. On or about July 19, 2000, $9,985 was wired from UAE into a Florida SunTrust bank account in the names of Mohammed Atta (#11) and Marwan al-Shehhi (#175).

23. On or about July 26, 2000, in Germany, Ramzi Bin al-Shibh wired money to Marwan al-Shehhi (#175) in Florida.

24. On or about August 7, 2000, $9,485 was wired from UAE into a Florida SunTrust bank account in the names of Mohammed Atta (#11) and Marwan al-Shehhi (#175).

25. On or about August 30, 2000, $19,985 was wired from UAE into a Florida SunTrust bank account in the names of Mohammed Atta (#11) and Marwan al-Shehhi (#175).

26. On or about September 18, 2000, $69,985 was wired from UAE into a Florida SunTrust bank account in the names of Mohamed Atta (#11) and Marwan al-Shehhi (#175).

dont forget UAE was also:

- The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. – The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.

– After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.


of all places, i got this info from the Democratic party website which was directed from Think Progress.

PhilosophyGenius
02-22-2006, 06:02 PM
Ya but there's a difference between the govnt and the company.

Gold9472
02-22-2006, 07:15 PM
UAE royals, bin Laden's saviours

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

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.

The 10-member bipartisan commission is investigating the events leading up to the September 11, 2001 attacks in the US.

A host of Clinton and Bush administration officials have testified before the commission.

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Amritage told the commission that it was impossible to send troops to Afghanistan against the Taliban and Al Qaeda without Pakistan's cooperation and building a new relationship with India.

"US sanctions against Pakistan on the nuclear and other issues complicated the matter and these had to be dismantled," Armitage said.

He also suggested if the US Congress wanted to show displeasure with any country, it should think of other methods than imposing sanctions.

Former White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke has charged that fighting terrorism was not the top priority with the Bush administration. The top priority, he suggested, was Iraq, not Al Qaeda, a claim refuted by the White House.

Clarke alleged that the White House delayed implementing the proposals he had made for eight months and adopted them only after 9/11.

jetsetlemming
02-22-2006, 08:17 PM
Americans would still be in charge of the actual port security, the UAE would control the business of the ports, not the security. Of course, most port and airport security is total crap these days anyway.

Gold9472
02-22-2006, 08:21 PM
Americans would still be in charge of the actual port security, the UAE would control the business of the ports, not the security. Of course, most port and airport security is total crap these days anyway.

Why not give it to a company within the United States (not Halliburton) instead of giving it to a company that comes from a country that had ties to the alleged hijackers?

Gold9472
02-22-2006, 08:23 PM
White House agrees to brief GOP leader Frist as it scrambles to save Dubai port deal

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/White_House_agrees_to_brief_GOP_0222.html

Published: February 22, 2006

White House officials were expected to brief national security advisers to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) today, hoping to squelch increased opposition on Capitol Hill to approval of a port management contract for a company based in the United Arab Emirates, a senior GOP aide told ROLL CALL Wednesday.

Excerpts:

The staff-level briefing comes as the White House continues a vigorous defense of its decision to permit Dubai Worldwide Ports to undertake a contract to manage a number of U.S. ports.

The controversy emerged because of high concerns that U.S. seaports, where not every shipment is thoroughly inspected, could be an entry point for terrorists or weapons of mass destruction. Although the Coast Guard is charged with securing American waters — and while customs officials control the importation of goods — companies that manage ports generally have significant security duties between the waterline and the facility’s fence line.

Late Tuesday, President Bush questioned the motivation of Congressional critics, hinting that complaints about the contract appear to be motivated out of fear of Arabs or Muslims.

Meanwhile, via AFP:

The White House scrambled to rescue a deal giving a state-run Arab firm control of operations at six major US ports and to limit the political fallout from the controversial arrangement.

President George W. Bush's chief spokesman, Scott McClellan, said Bush had only learned about the deal "over the last several days," once it was completed, saying questions about it "didn't rise to the presidential level."

But "the counterterrorism experts looked at it. The intelligence community did an assessment to make sure that there was no national security threat," McClellan told reporters.

One Republican congressional aide, who requested anonymity, said the White House should have realized that the agreement raised uncomfortable questions about national security -- a key issue ahead of November legislative elections.

jetsetlemming
02-22-2006, 08:29 PM
Why not give it to a company within the United States (not Halliburton) instead of giving it to a company that comes from a country that had ties to the alleged hijackers?
That could have been a good idea someone came up with before the UAE came around. Now it's a little more complicated. I'm thinking of what'll happen now if we deny the UAE after offering them the contract. Sort of a smack-in-the-face reaction, I'm thinking.

Gold9472
02-22-2006, 08:30 PM
That could have been a good idea someone came up with before the UAE came around. Now it's a little more complicated. I'm thinking of what'll happen now if we deny the UAE after offering them the contract. Sort of a smack-in-the-face reaction, I'm thinking.

It's not complicated at all. Give the contract to an American bidder.

jetsetlemming
02-22-2006, 08:35 PM
Before: "Yeah, we like you, UAE, but, uh, we're gonna give the contract to someone else"
Now: "Uh, yeah, we like you UAE, so we'll give you the contract! ...Oh, hold on, the people realized we're fucking idiots. Sorry, better luck next time. Maybe we can sell you an airport or an oil rig or power plant instead."

Gold9472
02-22-2006, 08:38 PM
Before: "Yeah, we like you, UAE, but, uh, we're gonna give the contract to someone else"
Now: "Uh, yeah, we like you UAE, so we'll give you the contract! ...Oh, hold on, the people realized we're fucking idiots. Sorry, better luck next time. Maybe we can sell you an airport or an oil rig or power plant instead."

We block the sales of foreign companies all the time. Have you forgotten China's bid to purchase Unocal?

jetsetlemming
02-22-2006, 08:41 PM
Yes. I have. Anyway, this isn't just blocked, it's offered, govermnet approved, then taken away. It's not like it takes much for the middle east to dislike us. I mean, we already shelled Micheal Jackson over to Dubai, so they probably are unhappy with us ulready.

jetsetlemming
02-22-2006, 08:42 PM
I think I should mention, btw, that I am not defending the port sale, or saying we shouldn't deny it. I'm just bemoaning about what'll happen next.

Gold9472
02-22-2006, 08:42 PM
Yes. I have. Anyway, this isn't just blocked, it's offered, govermnet approved, then taken away. It's not like it takes much for the middle east to dislike us. I mean, we already shelled Micheal Jackson over to Dubai, so they probably are unhappy with us ulready.

If the sale of the port was more public before everything was said and done, it's very possible the deal would have never gone through.

jetsetlemming
02-22-2006, 08:46 PM
Who wants to predict the resulting job approval drops? Can't go much lower.

beltman713
02-22-2006, 08:47 PM
Their line now is that this company would have nothing to do with security. And George Bush had absolutely no knowledge about this deal until it broke on the news.

jetsetlemming
02-22-2006, 08:49 PM
You know, about Bush not knowing about it, I just might believe that. He doesn't seem very hard to cut out of the loop. It's not like he pays attention to anything happening in America anyway.

beltman713
02-22-2006, 09:00 PM
Last month, the White House appointed a senior DP World executive, David C. Sanborn of Virginia, to be the new administrator of the Maritime Administration of the Transportation Department. Sanborn worked as DP World's director of operations for Europe and Latin America.

Gold9472
02-22-2006, 09:00 PM
9/11 victims' families aghast at deal

http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060222/NEWS/602220346

(Gold9472: DAMN IT KRISTEN)

BY MARGARET F. BONAFIDE
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 02/22/06

Why would a nation that urges citizens to be wary of anyone carrying a suspicious package on a train allow the sale of the company managing operations at six U.S. ports to a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates?

Shore area residents, including some who lost loved ones in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, just don't get it.

"We are spending billions on homeland security and invading nations, but when an Arab country wants to buy our ports" the priorities change, said John Pietrunti, whose brother, Nicholas, was killed in the World Trade Center attacks. "This administration believes we are stupid."

The Middletown resident said people don't know enough to feel safe about the sale.

Americans were told Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but none were found, he said. There should be full disclosure of all dealings with the U.A.E. so that the public and lawmakers can feel comfortable about the sale, Pietrunti said.

"It might be fear on my part," Pietrunti said. "I am the last person who feels like this is a black-and-white thing. But I find it odd. We can't handle our own things, with (Hurricane) Katrina and other problems and then we invite the trouble."

Also opposed to the sale is Kristen Breitweiser, 34, whose husband, Ron, died in the Sept. 11 attacks.

"Two of the hijackers were from U.A.E. and they flew the planes into my husband's building," said Breitweiser, formerly of Middletown.

"Terrorists don't send an RSVP," she said. "The ports are an obvious target."

Since her husband's death, she said, she has fought for full disclosure of everything the U.S. government knows about countries that funded the Sept. 11 attacks.

The committee that reassured the U.S. government about the safety of the sale said homeland security was "a factor that was taken into account," Breitweiser said. "It should be the priority, not a factor. When our nation approves of business deals like this, it sends a bad message to the people that . . . economic gain seems to supplant homeland security."

"I spent the last 4 1/2 years trying to show we need to increase security and decrease the dependency on foreign oil and we are going to give our port security to the country who funded 9/11," Breitweiser said.

Robert Hoebee of the Lanoka Harbor section of Lacey lost no relatives on Sept. 11 but opposes the sale just the same.

"Ownership equals control and it gives these people control over the operation," Hoebee said. "It's tragic."

"Maybe this company is not a problem, but we don't know because there is no information available," Hoebee said.

"How can you expect us to feel comfortable? Dubai laundered money for terrorists and we want to put our ports and our doorways in the hands of people like that?"

beltman713
02-22-2006, 09:03 PM
They are putting a fox in charge of the hen house, and another fox in charge of watching the first fox.

Gold9472
02-22-2006, 11:53 PM
Arab Co., White House Had Secret Agreement

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060223/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ports_security_52

By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 46 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. It chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.

As part of the $6.8 billion purchase, state-owned Dubai Ports World agreed to reveal records on demand about "foreign operational direction" of its business at U.S. ports, the documents said. Those records broadly include details about the design, maintenance or operation of ports and equipment.

The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.

"They're not lax but they're not draconian," said James Lewis, a former U.S. official who worked on such agreements. If officials had predicted the firestorm of criticism over the deal, Lewis said, "they might have made them sound harder."

The conditions involving the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. were detailed in U.S. documents marked "confidential." Such records are regularly guarded as trade secrets, and it is highly unusual for them to be made public.

The concessions — described previously by the Homeland Security Department as unprecedented among maritime companies — reflect the close relationship between the United States and the United Arab Emirates.

The revelations about the negotiated conditions came as the White House acknowledged President Bush was unaware of the pending sale until the deal had already been approved by his administration.

Bush on Tuesday brushed aside objections by leaders in the Senate and House. He pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement, but some lawmakers said they still were determined to capsize it.

Dubai Port's top American executive, chief operating officer Edward H. Bilkey, said the company will do whatever the Bush administration asks to enhance shipping security and ensure the sale goes through. Bilkey said Wednesday he will work in Washington to persuade skeptical lawmakers they should endorse the deal; Senate oversight hearings already are scheduled.

"We're disappointed," Bikley told the AP in an interview. "We're going to do our best to persuade them that they jumped the gun. The UAE is a very solid friend, as President Bush has said."

Under the deal, the government asked Dubai Ports to operate American seaports with existing U.S. managers "to the extent possible." It promised to take "all reasonable steps" to assist the Homeland Security Department, and it pledged to continue participating in security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials.

The administration required Dubai Ports to designate an executive to handle requests from the U.S. government, but it did not specify this person's citizenship.

It said Dubai Ports must retain paperwork "in the normal course of business" but did not specify a time period or require corporate records to be housed in the United States. Outside experts familiar with such agreements said such provisions are routine in other cases.

Bush faces a potential rebellion from leaders of his own party, as well as a fight from Democrats, over the sale. It puts Dubai Ports in charge of major terminal operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

Senate and House leaders urged the president to delay the takeover, which is set to be finalized in early March. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said the deal raised "serious questions regarding the safety and security of our homeland." House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., asked the president for a moratorium on the sale until it could be studied further.

In Saudi Arabia, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the agreement was thoroughly vetted. "We have to maintain a principle that it doesn't matter where in the world one of these purchases is coming from," Rice said Wednesday. She described the United Arab Emirates as "a good partner in the war on terrorism."

Bush personally defended the agreement on Tuesday, but the White House said he did not know about it until recently. The AP first reported the U.S. approval of the sale to Dubai Ports on Feb. 11, and many members of Congress have said they learned about it from the AP.

"I think somebody dropped the ball," said Rep. Vito Fossella (news, bio, voting record), R-N.Y. "Information should have flowed more freely and more quickly up into the White House. I think it has been mishandled in terms of coming forward with adequate information."

At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush learned about the deal "over the last several days," as congressional criticism escalated. McClellan said it did not rise to the presidential level, but went through a government review and was determined not to pose a threat.

McClellan said Bush afterward asked the head of every U.S. department involved in approving the sale whether there were security concerns. "Each and every one expressed that they were comfortable with this transaction going forward," he said.

Commerce Secretary Carlos Guiterrez told the AP the administration was being thoughtful and deliberate approving the sale.

"We are not reacting emotionally," Guiterrez said in an interview Wednesday. "That's what I believe our partners from around the world would like to see from us is that we be thoughtful. That we be deliberate. That we understand issues before we make a decision."

Gold9472
02-23-2006, 02:20 AM
Obscure US intelligence agency assessed ports deal

http://go.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=1097504&section=news&src=rss/uk/worldNews

By David Morgan
2/23/2006

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A deal that allows an Arab-owned company in Dubai to manage six major U.S. ports 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 Centre, 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.

U.S. officials approved the sale of British-based P&O to Dubai Ports World of the United Arab Emirates on January 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 with the 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, more than a month after the centre had been asked to begin work on the Dubai Ports World acquisition.

Dawson had been a senior information technology official 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.

Gold9472
02-23-2006, 01:50 PM
Sept. 11 Report Ties Bin Laden to UAE

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060223/ap_on_go_ot/ports_bin_laden

By ELIZABETH WHITE, Associated Press Writer 4 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The United States raised concerns with the United Arab Emirates seven years ago about possible ties between officials in that country and Osama bin Laden, according to a section of the Sept. 11 commission's report that details a possible missed opportunity to kill the al-Qaida leader.

Republicans and Democrats alike are raising concerns this week about the Bush administration's decision to let a UAE-operated company take over operations at six American ports, in part citing ties the Sept. 11 hijackers had to the Persian Gulf country.

President Bush has called the UAE a close partner on the war on terror since Sept. 11, and his aides have listed numerous examples of the country's help.

The Sept. 11 commission's report released last year also raised concerns UAE officials were directly associating with bin Laden as recently as 1999.

The report states U.S. intelligence believed that bin Laden was visiting an area in the Afghan desert in February 1999 near a hunting camp used by UAE officials, and that the U.S. military planned a missile strike.

Intelligence from local tribal sources indicated "bin Laden regularly went from his adjacent camp to the larger camp where he visited the Emiratis," the report said.

"National technical intelligence confirmed the location and description of the larger camp and showed the nearby presence of an official aircraft of the United Arab Emirates. But the location of bin Laden's quarters could not be pinned down so precisely," the report said.

The missile attack was never launched, and bin Laden moved on, the report said.

A month later, top White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke "called a UAE official to express his concerns about possible associations between Emirati officials and bin Laden," the report said.

CIA officials hope to continue staking out the Afghan camp in hopes bin Laden would return and a possible strike could be launched.

But "imagery confirmed that less than a week after Clarke's phone call, the camp was hurriedly dismantled and the site was deserted," the report said.

CIA officials were "irate" and "thought the dismantling of the camp erased a possible site for targeting bin Laden, the report said.

At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee Thursday, Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), the ranking Democrat, asked Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt if he was aware of the 9-11 commission's assertion that the United Arab Emirates represents "a persistent counterterrorism problem"for the United States.

Kimmitt replied that administration figures involved in the decision to approve the deal "looked very carefully" at information from the intelligence community.

"Any time a foreign-government controlled company comes in," Kimmitt said, "the intelligence assessment is of both the country and the company."

"Just raise your hand if anybody talked to the 9-11 commission," Levin told the administration representatives at the witness table. Nobody raised a hand.

Gold9472
02-23-2006, 05:09 PM
Bill O'Reilly Spins The Story... Unbelievably Spins The Story

Click Here (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/oreillyport.mp3)

PhilosophyGenius
02-23-2006, 05:37 PM
I agree that it makes more sense having an American company run the security here, on everything (not just ports). But I also don't think it's fair if Britain can run our ports, but not the UAE. The UAE govnt and the security company had no links to any hijackers or al-Qaeda. The govt of UAE is also a friend of the U.S. So if they take over some of our ports which were previously secured by Britain, and we tell the UAE to fuck off, that's a problem. It would be racially profiling and telling a good ally to go screw themsevles. It would also make us look worse in the muslim world.

Gold9472
02-23-2006, 06:19 PM
The UAE Government did have links to the alleged hijackers.

PhilosophyGenius
02-23-2006, 06:23 PM
Which was? Tommy Franks has even said there were none.

Gold9472
02-23-2006, 06:30 PM
Which was? Tommy Franks has even said there were none.

http://www.msnbc.com/modules/wtc/moussaoui_indictment/default.asp?p=1&cp1=1

21. On or about June 29, 2000, $4,790 was wired from the United Arab Emirates ("UAE") to Marwan al-Shehhi (#175) in Manhattan.

22. On or about July 19, 2000, $9,985 was wired from UAE into a Florida SunTrust bank account in the names of Mohammed Atta (#11) and Marwan al-Shehhi (#175).

23. On or about August 7, 2000, $9,485 was wired from UAE into a Florida SunTrust bank account in the names of Mohammed Atta (#11) and Marwan al-Shehhi (#175).

24. On or about August 30, 2000, $19,985 was wired from UAE into a Florida SunTrust bank account in the names of Mohammed Atta (#11) and Marwan al-Shehhi (#175).

26. On or about September 18, 2000, $69,985 was wired from UAE into a Florida SunTrust bank account in the names of Mohamed Atta (#11) and Marwan al-Shehhi (#175).

The company that made the deal for the ports is state-owned.

PhilosophyGenius
02-23-2006, 07:11 PM
I know that UAE is used by al-Qaeda for financing world wide. That that doesn't mean the govnt or the bank knew about it. If I wanted to I could open an account with the UAE and start sending money to people in any part of the world, that's just the way banks work.

Gold9472
02-23-2006, 07:13 PM
I know that UAE is used by al-Qaeda for financing world wide. That that doesn't mean the govnt or the bank knew about it. If I wanted to I could open an account with the UAE and start sending money to people in any part of the world, that's just the way banks work.

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=53245&postcount=21

PhilosophyGenius
02-24-2006, 12:35 AM
Hmmmm....you got me there. But it's not like UAE is gonna help orchestrate an attack through the ports and later have it traced back to them. And even if there is someone who works for the company in question who has bad intentions, there never gonna get away with smuggling something, to many people and security around. UAE also helped in the war in Iraq and capture al-Qaeda.

Gold9472
02-24-2006, 01:07 PM
United Arab Emirates Donated At Least $1M To Bush Library

http://www.click2houston.com/news/7397234/detail.html?rss=hou&psp=news

POSTED: 7:37 am CST February 24, 2006

HOUSTON -- A sheik from the United Arab Emirates contributed at least $1 million to the Bush Library Foundation, which established the George Bush Presidential Library at Texas A&M University in College Station.

The UAE owns Dubai Ports World, which is taking operations from London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which operates six U.S. ports.

A political uproar has ensued over the deal, which the White House approved without congressional oversight. Dubai Ports World offered Thursday night to delay part of the takeover to give the Bush administration more time to convince lawmakers the deal poses no security risks.

The donations were made in the early 1990s for the library, which houses the papers of former President George Bush, the current president's father.

The list of donors names Sheik Zayed Bin Sultan al Nahyan and the people of the United Arab Emirates as one donor in the $1 million or more category.

The amount of the gift grants them recognition on the engraved donor wall in the library entrance or on the paving bricks that line the library's walkways, according to library documents.

Roman Popaduik, chairman of the Bush Library Foundation that collects donations, said he could not discuss details of the gifts except to say the amount category and whether it was before or after 1997.

The chief executive of the Dubai company, Ahmed bin Sulayem, did not donate individually.

The hundreds of large donors include longtime Bush associates, including Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials as well as business titans -- such as Enron Corp. founder Kenneth Lay -- and big Republican donors.

Other Arab donors include the state of Kuwait, the Bandar bin Sultan family, the Sultanate of Oman, King Hassan II of Morocco and the amir of Qatar. The former Korean prime minister and China also gave tens of thousands of dollars to the library.

Gold9472
02-24-2006, 01:17 PM
UAE terminal takeover extends to 21 ports

http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060223-051657-4981r

By PAMELA HESS

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.

Gold9472
02-24-2006, 08:54 PM
Washington told to justify port deal in court

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-02-24T214824Z_01_N24228025_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-PORTS-NEWJERSEY.xml

(Gold9472: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! IN YOUR FACE BUSH!!!)

By Jon Hurdle
Fri Feb 24, 2006 4:48 PM ET

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - The Bush administration was ordered by a U.S. federal judge on Friday to explain why it did not give New Jersey officials documents and information Washington had about a deal allowing an Arab company to take over management of a container terminal in Newark.

U.S. District Court Judge Jose Linares signed an order demanding to know why the government did not carry out a full investigation into the change of ownership of the container terminal at Port Newark.

The judge set a hearing for Wednesday and said in the order he would issue a preliminary injunction blocking the deal, pending a full investigation, unless he was satisfied with Washington's answers.

The judge asked in the order that federal officials explain why New Jersey officials were not given the same documents and information that Washington used to approve the deal, under which state-owned Dubai Ports World would take over management from the British company P&O.

On Thursday, the State of New Jersey sued the federal government to block the deal on the grounds it violated the 10th Amendment, which says states control anything not explicitly mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.

Earlier, New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine urged the governors of states with ports affected by the deal -- Louisiana, New York, Florida, Connecticut, Maryland and Pennsylvania -- to join the lawsuit.

Democrat Corzine issued the invitation in letters to each governor, saying the lawsuit "will seek to enjoin this sale of vital assets to a foreign nation without our states having had the opportunity to determine the extent of the threat to the safety of our citizens."

The latest developments came as a second lawsuit was filed in New Jersey over the controversial deal.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey filed a lawsuit on Friday to stop the change of management of its container terminal at Port Newark in New Jersey.

The authority, jointly owned by the states of New York and New Jersey, said the deal violates the terms of P&O's lease.

The transaction is part of a $6.85 billion deal under which the United Arab Emirates company Dubai Ports World DPW would manage terminals at six major U.S. ports.

The plan has sparked protests from federal and local lawmakers and officials who fear the ports' security will be hurt if they are managed by a company whose owner has been accused of having links with terrorist groups.

The Port Authority said it has a right to review changes in port management under the existing lease agreement. The lawsuit, filed in the Superior Court in Newark, urged the court to declare that the purchase of P&O requires consent of the Port Authority under the lease, that the container terminal is in breach of its lease, and that the lease is terminated.

The suit names P&O Ports North America, and Port Newark Container Terminal LLC as defendants.

U.S. lawmakers opposed to the takeover have cited links between UAE and al Qaeda but President George W. Bush has defended the deal, calling the UAE an ally in his war on terrorism.

"The Port Authority has been deprived of its right to conduct a thorough review of the purchase ... of the identity, qualifications, experience and reputation of the purchasers ... and of the proposed impact that the change may have on the control and ownership," the lawsuit said.

Gold9472
02-24-2006, 10:43 PM
NOTE: this was the same process set up in Saudi Arabia that gave easy access to this country before 9-11

(Jon, you would have a better chance of getting people to notice this...plus you probably have one of the original articles about the Saudi express visa program)

I'm sorry... I didn't see this request.

Gold9472
02-24-2006, 11:41 PM
Bush Admin. Won't Reconsider Ports Deal

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ports_security

By DONNA DE LA CRUZ, Associated Press Writer 6 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration said Friday it won't reconsider its approval for a United Arab Emirates company to take over significant operations at six U.S. ports. The former head of the Sept. 11 commission said the deal "never should have happened."

Opponents, including the agency that runs New York and New Jersey ports, took their case to court, while the company, Dubai Ports World, stepped up efforts to change the minds of congressional critics.

The president's national security adviser said the White House would keep trying to persuade lawmakers — there's more time since the company offered to delay its takeover — but the administration wouldn't reconsider its approval.

"There are questions raised in the Congress, and what this delay allows is for those questions to be addressed on the Hill," Stephen Hadley said. "There's nothing to reopen."

Thomas Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey who led the bipartisan probe of the Sept. 11 attacks, said the deal was a big mistake because of past connections between the 2001 hijackers and the UAE.

"It shouldn't have happened, it never should have happened," Kean said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.

The quicker the Bush administration can get out of the deal, the better, he said. "There's no question that two of the 9/11 hijackers came from there and money was laundered through there," Kean said.

Kean acknowledged the UAE is now being helpful by allowing the United States to dock ships in its country's waters, and helping the U.S. with intelligence.

"From our point of view, we don't want foreigners controlling our ports," Kean said. "From their point of view, this is a legitimate company that had a legitimate bid and won, and here are all these congressmen saying all these things about not wanting this company. It looks to them like it's anti-Arab."

"I think this deal is going to be killed," Kean said. "The question is how much damage is this going to do to us before it's killed."

Kean's comments threatened to overshadow moves by the company and the White House to appease critics by delaying the takeover.

"Governor Kean knows as much as anyone how risky it is to deal with the United Arab Emirates," said Rep. Peter King (news, bio, voting record), R-N.Y., chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee and a leading opponent.

"This just proves that no real investigation was ever conducted, and it's unfortunate that he and the other 9/11 commissioners were not contacted before the government approved this."

The former head of the CIA's Osama bin Laden unit joined in the criticism.

"The fact that you are putting a company in place that could already be infiltrated by al-Qaida is a silly thing to do," said Mike Scheuer, who headed the CIA unit until 1999.

The U.S. operations generating the protests represent about 10 percent of a global $6.8 billion acquisition by the state-run company.

Republicans and Democrats in Congress have denounced the Bush administration for approving the deal through a secretive review process designed to protect national security in big corporate mergers.

Lawmakers led by King and Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., plan to introduce legislation next week that would put the deal on hold while the government conducts further investigation.

Hoping to forestall such legislation, Dubai Ports said Thursday night it would postpone its action indefinitely to give Congress more time to look at the deal.

Bush Press Secretary Scott McClellan said: "We believe once Congress has a better understanding of the facts and the safeguards that are in place that they will be more comfortable with the transaction moving forward. So, a slight delay would be helpful in that regard."

The Bush administration continued to defend the deal Friday even as it admitted mishandling the decision-making process.

"If there was a failure, we failed to recognize there might be a public reaction," Treasury Secretary John Snow told reporters in Richmond, Va. "Over time, we may recommend improvements in the process so Congress is better informed about transactions."

Tony Fratto, Treasury's top spokesman, said this would not necessarily involve changing the current law, which prohibits the review committee from briefing members of Congress before a decision is reached.

Sen. Pete Domenici (news, bio, voting record), R-N.M., said much of the criticism has an anti-Arab bias.

"We are at war against terrorists, not any religion or ethnicity. Some politicians seem to have forgotten that. ... Such alarm, verging almost on hysteria, harms our efforts to have the broadest coalition possible against worldwide terrorism," Domenici said.

House GOP leaders plan to meet Tuesday to decide whether they will still support immediate legislation to hold up the sale.

Rep. Thomas Reynolds (news, bio, voting record), R-N.Y., a member of the leadership, said he is "beginning to get what I want, which is to slow down this process so we can take a look at it."

Lobbyists for Dubai Ports went to Capitol Hill Friday to brief staffers. Lawmakers said the company's delay was a positive step, but not a solution.

"I think the onus still remains with the company and for those who approved it, to justify how this is consistent with our national security concerns," said Rep. Vito Fossella (news, bio, voting record), R-N.Y.

In New Jersey, the agency in charge of area ports sued to try to block Dubai Ports from taking over operations there.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey argued in court papers that Dubai Ports World was violating its lease by not getting consent for its pending acquisition of the current port operator, London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, who is also suing over the sale, urged other governors to join the case.

Governors of Maryland, New York and Pennsylvania have expressed concerns about the takeover; Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has said he trusts his brother the president on such security issues.

Gold9472
02-24-2006, 11:59 PM
9-11 commission head says deal 'never should have happened'

http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=4550576&nav=4QcS

(Gold9472: Interesting...)

2/24/2006

WASHINGTON The Bush administration says it won't reconsider its approval for a United Arab Emirates firm to take over key operations at six U-S ports. This even as Thomas Kean, the former head of the 9-11 commission said the deal "never should have happened."

Opponents, including the Port Authority, which runs New York and New Jersey's ports, sued in court to break the lease.

Thomas Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey who led the bipartisan probe of the 9-11 attacks, said the deal was a big mistake because of past connections between the 2001 hijackers and the U-A-E.

The former head of the C-I-A's Osama bin Laden unit joined in the criticism.

Lawmakers led by Senator Charles Schumer plan to introduce legislation next week to put the deal on hold while the government conducts further investigation.

Gold9472
02-25-2006, 12:11 AM
Senate Armed Services Cmte. Briefing on Foreign Ownership of U.S. Ports

Click Here (rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/ter/ter022306_ports.rm)

Gold9472
02-25-2006, 05:09 PM
Homeland Security Objected to Ports Deal

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060225/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ports_security

By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer 10 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Homeland Security Department objected at first to a United Arab Emirates company's taking over significant operations at six U.S. ports. It was the lone protest among members of the government committee that eventually approved the deal without dissent.

The department's early objections were settled later in the government's review of the $6.8 billion deal after Dubai-owned DP World agreed to a series of security restrictions.

The company indefinitely has postponed its takeover to give President Bush time to convince Congress that the deal does not pose any increased risks to the U.S. from terrorism.

Some lawmakers have pressed for a new and intensive review. Despite persistent criticism from Republicans and Democrats, the president has defended his administration's approval of the ports deal and threatened to veto any measures in Congress that would block it. Hearings are to continue this week.

A DP World executive said the company would agree to tougher security restrictions to win congressional support only if the same restrictions applied to all U.S. port operators. The company earlier had struck a more conciliatory stance, saying it would do whatever Bush asked to salvage the agreement.

"Security is everybody's business," senior vice president Michael Moore told The Associated Press. "We're going to have a very open mind to legitimate concerns. But anything we can do, any way to improve security, should apply to everybody equally."

The administration approved the ports deal on Jan. 17 after DP World agreed during secret negotiations to cooperate with law enforcement investigations in the future and make other concessions.

Some lawmakers have challenged the adequacy of a classified intelligence assessment crucial to assuring the administration that the deal was proper. The report was assembled during four weeks in November by analysts working for the director of national intelligence.

The report concluded that U.S. spy agencies were "unable to locate any derogatory information on the company," according to a person familiar with the document. This person spoke only on condition of anonymity because the report was classified.

Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., and others have complained that the intelligence report focused only on information the agencies collected about DP World and did not examine reported links between UAE government officials and al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden before the Sept. 11 attacks.

The uproar over DP World has exposed how the government routinely approves deals involving national security without the input of senior administration officials or Congress.

President Bush, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and even Treasury Secretary John Snow, who oversees the government committee that approved the deal, all say they did not know about the purchase until after it was finalized. The work was done mostly by assistant secretaries.

Snow now says he may consider changes in the approval process so lawmakers are better alerted after such deals get the go-ahead.

Stewart Baker, a senior Homeland Security official, said he was the sole representative on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States who objected to the ports deal. Baker said he later changed his vote after DP World agreed to the security conditions. Other officials confirmed Baker's account.

"We were not prepared to sign off on the deal without the successful negotiation of the assurances," Baker told the AP.

Officials from the White House, CIA, departments of State, Treasury, Justices, and others looked for guidance from Homeland Security because it is responsible for seaports. "We had the most obvious stake in the process," Baker said.

Baker acknowledged that a government audit of security practices at the U.S. ports in the takeover has not been completed as part of the deal. "We had the authority to do an audit earlier," Baker said.

The audit will help evaluate DP World's security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials at its seaport operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

The administration privately disclosed the status of the security audit to senators during meetings about improving reviews of future business deals involving foreign buyers. Officials did not suggest the audit's earlier completion would have affected the deal's approval.

New Jersey's Democratic governor, who is suing to block the deal, said in his party's weekly radio address on Saturday that the administration failed to properly investigate the UAE's record on terrorism.

"We were told that the president didn't know about the sale until after it was approved. For many Americans, regardless of party, this lack of disciplined review is unacceptable," Jon Corzine said.

Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, said there was no going back on the deal.

Gold9472
02-26-2006, 11:30 PM
Administration OKs Broad Port Deal Review

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ports_security

By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 21 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration said Sunday it will accept an extraordinary offer by a United Arab Emirates-based company to submit to a second — and broader — U.S. review of potential security risks in its deal to take over significant operations at six leading American ports. The plan averts an impending political showdown.

The Treasury Department said in a statement it will promptly begin the review once the company formally files a request for one. It said the same government panel that earlier investigated the deal but found no reason for national security concerns will reconsider it.

In six pages of documents sent earlier in the day to the White House, Dubai-based DP World asked for a 45-day investigation of plans to run shipping terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

The announcement means the White House likely won't face a revolt by fellow Republicans when lawmakers return Monday from a weeklong break. A united Republican Party can assert that its leaders — both in Congress and at the White House — have taken additional steps to protect national security.

In a statement Sunday, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said he will recommend that the Senate wait for results of the broader review before acting on legislation to delay or block the deal. Frist said he anticipates oversight hearings to continue to examine the agreement and its implications on maritime security.

DP World's offer was highly unusual. The secretive U.S. committee that considers security risks of foreign companies buying or investing in American industry has conducted such full investigations only about two dozen times among the more than 1,500 international deals it has reviewed.

The company said that during the renewed scrutiny, or until May 1, a London-based executive who is a British citizen would have authority over DP World's U.S. operations. It pledged that Dubai executives would not control or influence company business in the U.S., but said it was entitled to all profits during the period. It also said it will appoint an American to be its chief security officer in the United States.

"We hope that voluntarily agreeing to further scrutiny demonstrates our commitment to our long-standing relationship with the United States," said Edward H. Bilkey, the company's chief operating officer.

President Bush forcefully has defended his administration's earlier approval of DP World's proposal to buy London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. It was not immediately clear whether the re-examination by U.S. officials would produce a different outcome.

"We're satisfied that there's been a complete review of the deal," Frances Fragos Townsend, the White House homeland security adviser, said on "Fox News Sunday."

In the administration's earlier review, completed Jan. 17, DP World agreed to cooperate with law enforcement investigations and disclose records on demand about "foreign operational direction" of its business. The U.S. review committee unanimously approved the deal after a regular 30-day review, during which U.S. intelligence agencies reported they found no derogatory information about DP World in their files.

As part of that review, the administration did not require DP World to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to orders by American courts. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests for information or assistance.

In the legal papers sent to the White House, DP World said it would abide by the outcome of the lengthier review but indicated it could sue if the results were any different. The administration could seek additional security measures beyond the terms already negotiated.

A chief critic of the ports deal, Rep. Peter King (news, bio, voting record), R-N.Y., said the company appeared to invite the more thorough investigation sought by many lawmakers. King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said the proposal should be enough to delay any immediate effort in Congress to block the deal.

"If it is what it appears to be, to me there's no need at this time to go forward" with emergency legislation, King said. "Obviously we have to hold it in reserve and see what happens."

Another critic, Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., said DP World's willingness to submit to the new review was "certainly a significant step forward, but the devil is in the details." Schumer said Congress should have a chance after the review to approve or reject the administration's decision.

"If the report is completed and kept secret and only given to the president, who has already come out for the deal, it will not reassure Americans," Schumer said.

Despite the company's offer, Schumer said he still would introduce legislation Monday to ensure a thorough investigation is done.

Frist presented the outlines of a proposal to the company and the administration late Friday. All parties, including House Speaker Dennis Hastert's office, held talks through the weekend.

Critics of the deal have cited the UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who attacked New York and Washington in September 2001. The U.S. government also questioned the UAE years ago about possible ties between officials there and Osama bin Laden, according to the report by the independent commission that investigated the suicide hijackings. Critics also have complained that the UAE was one of only three countries to recognize the Taliban government in Afghanistan before the U.S. overthrow in 2001.

Gold9472
02-27-2006, 06:57 PM
Paper: Coast Guard Has Port Co. Intel Gaps

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060227/ap_on_go_ot/ports_security

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 52 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Citing broad gaps in U.S. intelligence, the Coast Guard cautioned the Bush administration that it was unable to determine whether a United Arab Emirates-owned company might support terrorist operations, a Senate panel said Monday.

The surprise disclosure came during a hearing on Dubai-owned DP World's plans to take over significant operations at six leading U.S. ports. The port operations are now handled by London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company.

"There are many intelligence gaps, concerning the potential for DPW or P&O assets to support terrorist operations, that precludes an overall threat assessment of the potential" merger," an undated Coast Guard intelligence assessment says.

"The breadth of the intelligence gaps also infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities," the document says.

Sen. Susan Collins (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security committee, released an unclassified version of the document at a briefing Monday. With the deal under intense bipartisan criticism in Congress, the Bush administration agreed Sunday to DP World's request for a second review of the potential security risks related to its deal.

The document raised questions about the security of the companies' operations, the backgrounds of all personnel working for the companies, and whether other foreign countries influenced operations that affect security.

"This report suggests there were significant and troubling intelligence gaps," said Collins, R-Maine. "That language is very troubling to me."

Administration officials defended their decision not to trigger a 45-day review of national security implications of such a deal.

"In this case, the concerns that you're citing were addressed and resolved," Clay Lowry, the Treasury Department's assistant secretary for international affairs, told lawmakers.

The Coast Guard indicated to The Associated Press that it did not have serious reservations about the ports deal on Feb. 10, when the news organization first inquired about potential security concerns.

"Any time there's a new operator in a port our concern would be that that operator has complied with the (International Ship and Port Facility Security) ISPS code overseas and we just want to take a look at their track record," Cmdr. Jeff Carter, Coast Guard spokesman, said at the time. "And then we would look forward to working with them in the future ensuring they complied with all applicable regulations and international agreements," he added.

Gold9472
02-28-2006, 02:59 PM
Exclusive: Dubai ports firm enforces Israel boycott

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395502196&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

By MICHAEL FREUND
2/28/2006

The parent company of a Dubai-based firm at the center of a political storm in the US over the purchase of American ports participates in the Arab boycott against Israel, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

The firm, Dubai Ports World, is seeking control over six major US ports, including those in New York, Miami, Philadelphia and Baltimore. It is entirely owned by the Government of Dubai via a holding company called the Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporation (PCZC), which consists of the Dubai Port Authority, the Dubai Customs Department and the Jebel Ali Free Zone Area.

"Yes, of course the boycott is still in place and is still enforced," Muhammad Rashid a-Din, a staff member of the Dubai Customs Department's Office for the Boycott of Israel, told the Post in a telephone interview.

"If a product contained even some components that were made in Israel, and you wanted to import it to Dubai, it would be a problem," he said.

A-Din noted that while the head office for the anti-Israel boycott sits in Damascus, he and his fellow staff members are paid employees of the Dubai Customs Department, which is a division of the PCZC, the same Dubai government-owned entity that runs Dubai Ports World.

Moreover, the Post found that the website for Dubai's Jebel Ali Free Zone Area, which is also part of the PCZC, advises importers that they will need to comply with the terms of the boycott.

In a section entitled "Frequently Asked Questions", the site lists six documents that are required in order to clear an item through the Dubai Customs Department. One of them, called a "Certificate of Origin," "is used by customs to confirm the country of origin and needs to be seen by the office which ensures any trade boycotts are enforced," according to the website.

A-Din of the Israel boycott office confirmed that his office examines certificates of origin as a means of verifying whether a product originated in the Jewish state.

On at least three separate occasions last year, the Post has learned, companies were fined by the US government's Office of Anti-boycott Compliance, an arm of the Commerce Department, on charges connected to boycott-related requests they had received from the Government of Dubai.

US law bars firms from complying with such requests or cooperating with attempts by Arab governments to boycott Israel.

In one instance, according to a Commerce Department press release, a New York-based exporter agreed to pay a fine for having "failed to report in a timely manner its receipts of requests from Dubai" to provide certification that its products had not been made in Israel.

The proposed handover of US ports to DP World has provoked a political storm in Washington, where Republicans and Democrats alike have expressed hostility to the plan, citing national security concerns.

In an attempt to stave off opposition, DP World agreed over the weekend to a highly unusual 45-day second federal investigation of potential security risks.

Gold9472
02-28-2006, 08:54 PM
ADL to U.S.: Freeze seaport contract with UAE due to Israel boycott

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/688591.html

By Shlomo Shamir, Haaretz Correspondent, and The Associated Press
2/28/2006

The Anti-Defamation League is demanding the American administration prevent a Dubai-owned corporation from operating seaports in the United States until the United Arab Emirates issues an official statement indicating it has abandoned the boycott of Israel.

"Dubai continues to be an active partner in the economic boycott of Israel," ADL Director Abraham Foxman told Haaretz on Tuesday.

"This fact alone is reason enough to suspend or even cancel the implementation of the contract [for the operation of the seaports]," Foxman said.

In a letter addressed to Treasury Secretary John Snow, Foxman wrote:

"According to the Department of Commerce, as recently as 2005, the government of Dubai was alleged to be asking U.S. companies to certify that goods shipped to Dubai were 'neither of Israeli origin nor do they contain Israeli materials, nor are being exported from Israel.'

"For decades, the United States has been a leader in the fight against the economic boycott of Israel... Dubai, an adherent to this boycott, should not benefit from America's open trade policy.

"There are many complex issues involved in this deal and many serious debates are going on around the country regarding port security and process. Aside from these considerations, if Dubai continues its anti-Israel activity, it must be grounds for the cancellation of the deal."

U.S. President George Bush said Tuesday he remains supportive of a UAE-based company's takeover of some U.S. port operations, even though a new, more intensive investigation of the deal's potential security risks has yet to begin.

Bush is the final arbiter of that second review. Yet, he said after an Oval Office meeting with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi that "my position hasn't changed" on support for transferring control of management of some major U.S. port facilities from a British company to Dubai-owned DP World.

The administration's approval of the deal has caused an uproar from Republicans and Democrats in Congress that it could open the country to terrorist dangers. Lawmakers criticized the deal anew Tuesday, despite Republican leaders' hopes that the furor had diminished.

Foxman said that "even if solutions are found for the other problems, the administration and Congress must demand Dubai formally renounce its participation in the boycott of Israel in order to be worthy of a contract with the American government."

Foxman noted that, when the U.S. was negotiating trade relations it Bahrain, it had demanded the Gulf nation abandon its participation in the boycott of Israel.

Hoping to quell the bipartisan rebellion and prevent a potentially embarrassing clash over legislation, the Bush administration agreed Sunday to DP World's request for a 45-day investigation of deal's potential security risks, a second review that was not done before the administration's January 17 approval.

The investigation will result in a report submitted to the president, who will have 15 days to decide whether to approve it.

Bush suggested there was no reason to think the second investigation would produce any different outcome than the first.

"I look forward to a good, consistent review," he said as he and Berlusconi alternated in taking questions from reporters in the Oval Office.

He urged Congress to "please, look at the facts."

"What kind of signal does it send throughout the world if its okay for a British company to mange the ports but not a company that has been secured - that has been cleared for security purposes from the Arab world?" he said. After his remarks on port security, Bush told the translator not to translate his answer into Italian, unlike his other responses.

On Capitol Hill, where lawmakers returned after a weeklong break, Republicans joined Democrats in criticizing the deal, claiming that the government's initial approval of it was flawed.

They offered as proof Monday's disclosure that the U.S. Coast Guard had raised concerns weeks ago that, because of U.S. intelligence gaps, it could not determine whether the UAE company, DP World, might support terrorist operations.

Bush administration officials say those concerns were addressed and resolved.

But House Homeland Security Committee chairman Peter King, R-N.Y., called the Coast Guard assessment "just another example of many unanswered questions."

Countering that at a Senate appropriations hearing, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff called the Coast Guard documents "an early report" that ultimately concluded that DP World's acquisition of P&O "in and of itself, does not pose a significant threat to U.S. assets in U.S. ports."

Pressed by Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., Chertoff said he saw the Coast Guard memo "about a week ago," but disagreed that it represented a warning. "I don't see it as a flashing light," Chertoff said.

Elsewhere in Washington, former president Bill Clinton told reporters at a meeting of the nation's governors that the process by which a multi-agency panel approved the deal was "too secretive, too low-level."

"The second thing and the larger problem is that everybody in America knows we don't do enough on port security," Clinton said.

In an interview with The Associated Press, King said he was concerned by Bush administration comments that the 45-day delay would merely be an opportunity to educate Congress.

"It is for them to conduct an investigation that they never conducted in the first place," King said. "There's concerns among Republicans that I've spoken to that the administration has not taken the investigation seriously. They want to have a real investigation - a very intense investigation."

King said he planned to introduce legislation Tuesday that could give Congress an opportunity to block the deal if lawmakers are dissatisfied with the results of an investigation but he suggested he's unlikely to push for an immediate vote. "It has to be a weapon held in reserve to assure there is a real investigation," King said.

A bipartisan group of senators have introduced the same measure in the Senate. Some Senate Republicans said the fresh investigation - brokered by congressional GOP leaders to quell the political outcry - wasn't sufficient.

Sen. John Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said during that panel's hearing on threats to national security that he found "flaws" in the Bush administration's earlier consideration of the ports deal.

But Warner, R-Va., expressed optimism the government will approve the transaction after a lengthier investigation and he praised the "high degree of mutual trust" between the United Arab Emirates and United States.

On Monday, Sen. Susan Collins, the chairwoman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, disclosed the Coast Guard document during a hearing and said she was "more convinced than ever that the process was truly flawed."

Gold9472
03-02-2006, 02:55 PM
Ports deal to close by Monday: official

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060302/ts_nm/security_ports_deal_dc

3/2/2006

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Dubai Ports World's $6.85 billion acquisition of Britain's P&O will close on Friday or Monday, despite an additional 45-day review by the U.S. government in response to security concerns, a U.S. Treasury Department official said on Thursday.

"My understanding is that the deal will not close today," Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt told a Senate panel. "Although they had announced March 2 as the closing date ... that deal will not now close until tomorrow or Monday."

Kimmitt made his statement in response to a question from lawmakers on the Senate Banking Committee.

Gold9472
03-02-2006, 05:15 PM
UAE warns of threat to investments in political row

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/03/02/cnport02.xml&menuId=242&sSheet=/money/2006/03/02/ixcitytop.html

By David Litterick in New York (Filed: 02/03/2006)

The US could lose a host of much-needed inward investment as foreign countries disturbed by the row over the control of US ports look elsewhere to invest money.

The economy minister of the United Arab Emirates, the country at the heart of the row, said that while political pressure to block the deal would not prevent the Gulf state from seeking further investments in the US, it would likely give other countries pause.

Sheikha Lubna al-Qassimi said other markets in Asia and Europe would now prove more attractive to wealthy Arabs and other investors.

"There is no hesitation, this will not deter the UAE from investing further. This is a business deal that somehow got politicised. But when you have deals that are prolonged by interference of a political nature, it may encourage many countries to go into investments in other places." She said India, China and some countries in Europe would be the likely beneficiaries.

The US is running a massive current account deficit and relies on inward investment to finance it. It has been able to count on petrodollars from countries like Saudi Arabia as a result of the booming world oil market. However, Middle Eastern investors are thought to be becoming jittery.

Hany Hussein, fund manager at Mashreqbank in Dubai, said: "Political risk is there in varying degrees in any transaction. But in this case one can ask 'Would this have happened if Dubai Ports World had not been an Arab company?'"

President Bush has been a staunch defender of the deal, which would see DP World assume control of operations at six US ports following its takeover of P&O. However, politicians have claimed it would be a threat to national security.

The sides have agreed to a fresh 45-day review but DP World has pledged to complete the deal, subject to a ruling in the High Court in London today. "It has certainly reinforced the perception here that Arab investors can be singled out," said Steve Brice, head of Middle East research at Standard Chartered bank in Dubai.

Ironically, the comments came as US commerce secretary Carlos Gutierrez travelled to Saudi Arabia to urge the country to be more welcoming to foreign investment.

The High Court is expected to rule on whether to allow the scheme of arrangement that will seal the $6.8bn merger, after hearing arguments from Eller & Co, a Miami joint venture partner of P&O which claims the deal will adversely affect its business.

Federal courts in the US are due to hear representations from the port authorities of New Jersey, which want the deal blocked.

Gold9472
03-02-2006, 11:47 PM
Israeli Software Company Faces U.S. Probe

http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/feeds/ap/2006/03/02/ap2564113.html

By TED BRIDIS , 03.02.2006, 12:28 AM

Days after the Bush administration approved a ports deal involving the United Arab Emirates, the same review panel privately notified an Israeli software company it faced a rare, full-blown investigation over its plans to buy a smaller U.S. rival.

The company was told U.S. officials feared the transaction could endanger some of the government's most sensitive computer systems.

The objections by the FBI and Pentagon were partly over specialized intrusion detection software known as "Snort," which guards some classified U.S. military and intelligence computers.

Snort's author is a senior executive at Sourcefire Inc., which would be sold to publicly traded Check Point Software Technologies Ltd. in Ramat Gan, Israel.

The contrast between the administration's handling of the $6.8 billion Dubai ports deal and the Israeli company's $225 million technology purchase offers an uncommon glimpse into the U.S. government's choices to permit some deals but raise deep security concerns over others.

The 45-day investigation into the Israeli deal still under way is only the 26th ever conducted in 1,600 business transactions reviewed by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States. The panel, facing criticism by Congress about its scrutiny of the ports deal, judges the security risks of foreign companies buying or investing in American industry.

In private meetings between the panel and Check Point, officials from the FBI and Defense Department objected forcefully to permitting any foreign company to acquire some sensitive Sourcefire technology for preventing hacker break-ins and monitoring data traffic, an executive familiar with the discussions told The Associated Press. This executive spoke on condition of anonymity because government negotiations are supposed to remain confidential.

Under the sale, publicly announced Oct. 6, Check Point would own all Sourcefire's patents, source-code blueprints for its software and the expertise of employees. Sourcefire is based in Columbia, Md.

William Reinsch, a former senior U.S. official who participated in reviews under President Clinton, said the Israeli sale involves more dire security issues than the administration's recent approval for a Dubai-owned company to take over significant operations at six major American ports.

"This raises a lot more important issues," said Reinsch, a former Commerce Department undersecretary. "The most important case is where we're making an irrevocable technology transfer to a foreign party. Port operations raise security issues, but the ports are still in the United States."

Check Point and Sourcefire declined to comment. Officials at the Defense Department, FBI and Justice Department also declined to comment.

Gold9472
03-08-2006, 07:45 PM
House panel votes to block ports deal

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060308/pl_nm/security_ports_congress_dc;_ylt=AjWTNw_wSr6OW1VU5n 4Y0sKyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

41 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A House of Representatives committee on Wednesday voted to block the Bush administration's plan for allowing a Dubai company to manage six U.S. ports.

By a vote of 62-2, the House Appropriations Committee approved the amendment to stop the state-owned United Arab Emirates company Dubai Ports World from managing terminals at the American ports.

The legislation, which could be voted on by the full House next week, was attached to an emergency spending bill providing more funds for the war in Iraq and rebuilding southern states hit last year by hurricanes.

Gold9472
03-09-2006, 02:01 PM
State Dept. trashes UAE rights record

http://www.nydailynews.com/03-09-2006/news/wn_report/story/398065p-337325c.html

BY RICHARD SISK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
3/9/2006

WASHINGTON - The State Department's human rights report ripping the United Arab Emirates landed with near-perfect bad timing for the White House yesterday in the middle of the ports sale debate.

Opponents of the deal quickly seized on the report as yet another strike against the sale of terminals at six major U.S. ports to a firm owned by the government of Dubai, one of the seven emirates.

Rep. Peter King (R-L.I.), who raised the initial alarms that have now been taken up by the GOP House leadership, said the report knocked down the White House's argument that the UAE was a reform-minded nation.

"This shows that they're a very regressive, very oppressive, nondemocratic regime," King said.

"This is another reason that we shouldn't allow Dubai to own our ports," said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).

The section on the UAE in the State Department's annual survey of human rights worldwide cited UAE abuses ranging from the flogging of prisoners to international trafficking in prostitutes and in young boys used as jockeys in camel races. The report also charged, "There are no democratically elected institutions or political parties. There are no general elections."

Gold9472
03-09-2006, 04:23 PM
Dubai withdraws from ports deal

http://rawstory.com/news/2006/CNN_Dubai_deal_shut_down_0309.html

Published: March 9, 2006

Dubai Ports World International has announced it will divest itself of its U.S. operations, after House and Senate Republican leaders declare the deal 'dead' in Congress.

Senator John Warner (R-VA), Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, announced that the United Arab Emirates company had withdrawn efforts to take over control of 21 U.S. ports on the Senate floor.

CNN: Reading a statement from DP World on the Senate floor, Warner, a Virginia Republican, said the reason is "to preserve" the strong relationship between the UAE and United States.

AP: "Warner, the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he had received the statement from DP World's chief operating officer Edward Bilkey."

The announcement came shortly after House and Senate leaders declared the deal dead, and House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) delivered the news to Bush during a meeting at the White House.

Dubai Ports World closed its $6.8 billion takeover of Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. Thursday, the British company that was managing the U.S. ports, turning it into one of the world's three largest ports operators.

Gold9472
03-09-2006, 04:24 PM
Ok. I'm done maintaining this crappy thread.

Gold9472
03-11-2006, 01:41 AM
Bush warns over port row 'signal'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4794230.stm

3/12/2006

President George W Bush has said opposition in the US to a deal giving a Dubai-based company control of six US ports sends a bad signal to allies.

Mr Bush said the United Arab Emirates was a "valued and strategic partner" in the US-led war on terrorism.

Dubai Ports World has agreed to cede control of the ports to a "US entity" after an outcry from lawmakers worried the deal would harm national security.

Meanwhile, US-UAE trade talks set for Monday have been postponed.

Officials from both sides downplayed the delay and said it was unrelated to the ports row.

Spokeswoman for the US Trade Representative's Office Neena Morjani said both sides were committed to the free trade talks but needed "additional time to prepare for the second round of negotiations".

The US and the UAE have been discussing a free trade deal since March 2005.

Congress opposition
Mr Bush told a conference of the National Newspaper Association that the US needed allies like the UAE.

"They are a key partner for our military in a critical region, and outside of our own country, Dubai services more of our military, military ships, than any country in the world," he said.

Mr Bush added: "In order to win the war on terror we have got to strengthen our friendships and relationships with moderate Arab countries in the Middle East."

But the president admitted Congress was "still very much opposed" to the deal.

Dubai Ports World is taking over P&O, which currently runs the ports. Lawmakers have threatened to block the takeover on security grounds.

They have called for a comprehensive review of ownership of key transport assets, despite the concession from Dubai Ports World.

The company has not explicitly said it will sell the subsidiaries responsible for US ports, although the White House has suggested that this will be the end result.

Trade experts agreed with Mr Bush that the Dubai Ports World saga would set a damaging precedent for other Middle Eastern firms planning to invest in the US.

"It is just assuming that if a company is from the Middle East it is de facto disqualified from investing in the United States, and I think that is a terrible message to send," said Daniel Griswold, director of the Cato Institute's Centre for Trade Policy Studies.

It has now emerged that a second Dubai-owned firm is already providing shipping services in the US.

The other company - Inchcape Shipping Services (ISS) - has been owned since January by the United Arab Emirates investment firm Istithmar.

ISS, whose clients include the US Navy, has had extensive interests in the US for many years.

It arranges pilots, tugs and dock workers for shipping companies and works with the US Customs to ensure the smooth arrival and departure of vessels at ports such as New York, New Jersey and San Francisco.

Gold9472
02-17-2007, 10:16 AM
Troubled U.S. ports deal clears last hurdle

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/16/america/NA-GEN-US-Ports-Security.php

The Associated Press
Published: February 16, 2007

WASHINGTON: Six major U.S. port operations will come under U.S. ownership after Dubai Ports World cleared a $50 million (€38.11 million) hurdle Friday to end a yearlong political conflict over security at the nation's cargo terminals.

DP World, based in United Arab Emirates, agreed in December to sell its U.S. ports operations to AIG Global Investment Group, following months of criticism that the UAE firm could not be trusted running the security-sensitive shipping apparatus.

That deal suddenly foundered this week when the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which must consent to the sale, asked the two companies for tens of millions of dollars in cash and future infrastructure work at the Port Newark Container Terminal.

The business brinksmanship led two U.S. senators on Thursday to dub the Port Authority's demands greedy and to threaten political payback if the agency did not back down.

Late Friday, officials said they had struck a deal to resolve the impasse, with AIG agreeing to make more than $40 million (€30 million) worth of infrastructure improvements, as well as a direct payment of $10 million (€7.6 million) to the Port Authority.

"We're pleased that we've reached an agreement that both protects our public investment and helps insure that AIG is a long-term partner in the health and growth of the ports," said Port Authority spokesman Stephen Sigmund.

DP World officials said the entire sale should be finalized in March.

AIG spokesman Chris Winans said the company was "extremely pleased" and looking forward "to a long and successful partnership with the Port Authority."

The latest standoff began when Port Authority officials asked for roughly $30 million (€23 million) in past improvements to the Port Newark Container Terminal — and a commitment from AIG for future infrastructure work. The companies said the agency originally demanded $84 million (€64 million), and that the Port Authority was the last obstacle to completing the sale.

At that, Democratic Sens. Charles Schumer Robert Menendez found themselves in an odd position: coming to DP World's defense after more than a year of publicly ripping the company.

Both senators on Thursday threatened the Port Authority with less federal aid if the agency did not back down.

Schumer called Friday's deal fair and said he was glad the Port Authority "has come to its senses."

DP World is the world's largest marine terminal operator with 51 terminals in 24 countries. The sale agreement struck in December includes major U.S. seaports in New York/New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, New Orleans and Tampa, Florida.

AIG Global Investment Group is an asset management firm with more than $635 billion (€484 billion) in assets. Its parent company is the New York-based insurance firm, American International Group Inc.

The deal also involves stevedoring operations in 16 locations along the eastern seaboard and Gulf Coast and a passenger terminal in New York.

The U.S. holdings were valued last year at roughly $700 million (€534 million), but the companies did not disclose the sale price.

MrDark71
02-17-2007, 10:25 AM
Our GWB appointed "Border Security Chief" is former CIA....how else does the heroin get in here.

Gold9472
01-11-2009, 12:21 PM
bump