Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 71

Thread: This Is Nuts

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    America
    Posts
    30,708
    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.
    No One Knows Everything. Only Together May We Find The Truth JG


  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    America
    Posts
    30,708
    UAE Would Also Control Shipments of Military Equipment For The U.S. Army

    http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/20/...ary-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.
    No One Knows Everything. Only Together May We Find The Truth JG


  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    America
    Posts
    30,708
    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."
    No One Knows Everything. Only Together May We Find The Truth JG


  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    America
    Posts
    30,708
    BushCo. Has Ties To UAE Port Company

    http://www.nydailynews.com/front/sto...p-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.
    No One Knows Everything. Only Together May We Find The Truth JG


  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    America
    Posts
    30,708
    Transcript: Bush says he'll back port deal, despite GOP unrest

    http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Transc...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.
    No One Knows Everything. Only Together May We Find The Truth JG


  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    America
    Posts
    30,708
    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.
    No One Knows Everything. Only Together May We Find The Truth JG


  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    America
    Posts
    30,708
    http://www.msnbc.com/modules/wtc/mou....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).
    No One Knows Everything. Only Together May We Find The Truth JG


  8. #18
    rayrayjones Guest

    another 9-11

    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
    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.

  9. #19
    rayrayjones Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Gold9472
    http://www.msnbc.com/modules/wtc/mou....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.

  10. #20
    PhilosophyGenius Guest
    Ya but there's a difference between the govnt and the company.

Similar Threads

  1. Conspiracy Nuts And 9/11 (Swans)
    By Partridge in forum 9/11 Justice Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-28-2006, 10:01 AM
  2. Jack Straw: Report On Iran Strike "Nuts"
    By Gold9472 in forum The New News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-09-2006, 03:23 PM
  3. Take a stand against the 'Conspiracy NUTS'....
    By Se7en in forum The New News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-11-2005, 10:13 PM
  4. Downing Street Memo Activists "Wing Nuts," "Paranoid"
    By pcteaser in forum The New News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-14-2005, 09:51 PM
  5. Scientific American Takes On The 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts
    By Gold9472 in forum 9/11 Justice Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-09-2005, 03:24 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •