Here's something I don't like Bush for...

Remove all ads!

No, no, no. The US Customs service is still the only one that decides what does and doesn't get opened. We're talking about people in the UAE telling Americans which packages get priority, the shipment of medicine from Asia which will get inspected, or the shipment of fuel-injection nozzles from the UK, which won't. We're talking about them deciding who gets hired, the day-to-day stuff.
As for why we're doing it, you may not have noticed, but the national government needs money. The Foreign governments are paying us to be able to ensure their ships will get proper priority and handling in 'their' ports on our soil. They don't bypass any of the security that is in place on the next terminal down, which is US controlled.
EDIT: John Stuart, on the Daily Show, got it right when he said this seems right in the head, but wrong in the gut. Bush has all the facts on his side, it is only miscommunication, mistrust, and a general fear of anything middle eastern that puts this in the news.

 

Now, I don't mean to sound judgemental, but here's something I think you folks should read in relation to this issue. And no, it's not by an Australian.

I can understand reticence. I can understand reluctance, or unwillingness, to be so trusting after the destruction of the World Trade Centre towers. What I can't understand is the seemingly paranoid stance being taken here. And I find it ironic that the tables (and arguments) have turned so completely in this instance as compared to the decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

EDIT: NOG, you're right about the decision to open and inspect containers - that is and will always be in the hands of Customs officials, and no-one should have expected otherwise.

[ February 28, 2006, 00:15: Message edited by: NonSequitur ]

 

Oh, come on. You guys sound so sure that nothing can go wrong with the administration of US ports in foreign hands. I think you're too naive (or not paranoid enough ). It's true that the physical security is still in the hands of the Coast Guard. However, security does not rests only on the physical checks. There is an informational aspect to it, too.

As BTA said before, containers are inspected based on risk assesment. It's easy to imagine that the people in charge would be aware of the procedures being followed (and the factors taken into account in assesing the risks). You think that information is not valuable to a would be terrorist?

Apparently, the Coast Guard itself had doubts about the security aspects of this deal:

However, "their concerns were alleviated by a set of assurances from the Dubai company and the current port operator". Well, that certainly is reassuring. I wonder what kind of assurances would the administration need in order to free some of those guys in GITMO. Oh, but I forgot, those are just some individuals, there is no corporation standing behind them.

 

Hehe, if we'd have had the contract another few years, we'd have taken our colony back

Like Taliban Oil Deals? Perhaps? Dealings with Saudi?

 

Funny thing is that the US is not a good ally to Britain (and especially Ireland) on the war on terror.

Personally I don't see what all the fuss is about. If you all worry about terrorism so much, then stop supporting it my little provence and then I will take you seriously.

 

Cuch,

How 'bout if you stop falsely accusing Americans as a whole of supporting Irish terrorism, then I'll take YOU seriously. How about that?

 

I am obviously not making myself clear. I understand that if everything went by the books, this UAE run company would not be in a position to do anything to get a shipment of something through customs that normally wouldn't. But I'm assuming if we're talking about a terrorist plot, that not everything would be done "by the book".

As BTA has already pointed out, containers are inspected based on a risk assessment. Presumably, this company will know what specifically is taken into consideration during these risk assessments, which means they also implicitly know ways to (mis)label a package that would cause the least concern or raise the fewest eyebrows. So while I agree that they aren't in the position to just look the other way as a chemical weapon is openly smuggled into the country, they certainly can give information to terrorist groups about the best way to get a package into the country unnoticed. And, short of actually looking the other way as the weapon is smuggled in, this is about the best help a terrorist can get.

Maybe a more tangible example is in order. Say we routinely (like once a week) receive a shipment of 20 crates of product X from somewhere. It doesn't have to be from a country with terrorist ties, but one were they might not have the tightest security. The actual product is irrelevant. I don't care if it's a food product or the shipping company owns some 3rd world sweat shop thats shipping stuff to Walmart. Since these are regular shipments that may not be routinely inspected, this compnay can tell a terrorist group to ship a weapon in one of those containers.

I understand that these examples are all extremely hypothetical, but the point I'm making is that information about an operation can be just as instrumental as direct aid.

I'm assuming you're referring to the conflict between England and Ireland and not things like the bus bombs in London. If so, things have been very quiet in that regard for a very long time. The last time there was real conflict between England and Ireland I was still a child. I'm not saying it could never happen again, but the threat of a terroist attack there is far less likely than elsewhere. Without any evidence for an attack, what would you have the U.S. do? You want us to send peace keeping troops during the Orange Parade?

 

I am not stating that the USA as a whole is to be blamed for violence in N.I. as the people most responsible are the Loyalist and Republican terrorists from N.Ireland, but the fact that certain fund-raising groups in the USA are not illegal still amazes me. They should have been banned many years ago like many Islamic charities.

Its just frustrating to hear a company from the UAE *could* risk US security, yet its not worth the effort cannot be put into making a few groups illegal. Just put yourself in the position of an Irish person that we born before 1995.

 

I can't seem to stress enough the differences with the Dubai Ports company. Peninsular and Oriental was a foreign based corporation, but it wasn't an entity of a foreign government...it just happened to be based in the UK. Dubai Ports is owned and operated by the UAE government. This is a huge difference and significantly different from a foreign country like Singapore leasing port space from an American operated corporation.

Do you honestly think that there's no one within the non-representative Emirate government who doesn't at least have sympathy for the Islamic fundamentalist jihad against the West?

We live in a changed world. Global boundaries have shrunk to seem insignificant. I agree that you can't go through life in paranoid fear, but you certainly don't need to go through life stupid either. Keep your boundaries under your own control, even if the deal seems lucrative and lets you pay back the cooperation of a recent ally in the "war on terror".

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to take some oxygen. Finding myself side with people who I usually disagree with is making me light headed.

 

Yeah - what's up with that? Why am I finding myself on the same side of the debate as Hack? IMO, there are really very few people who seriously consider the issues, and from that consider themselves always Democrat/liberal or always Republican/conservative. It is far more common that you have to listen to both sides and then form your opinion. While I am registered as a Democrat, and usually find myself agreeing with most of the liberal talking points, I HAVE voted for Republicans in the past, and I probably will do so again in the future. Similarly, while my political leanings are mostly liberal, I am conservative in other respects. I think very few people can be pigeon-holed one way or the other.

 

So is your point that we are already letting foreign companies verify the contents of the shipping? If the majority of this is done on foreign soil, I imagine that well, it's foreigners who are inspecting the containers. My arguement is that Americans should be in charge of making sure hazardous stuff isn't coming into American ports. Saying that "it doesn't matter because most of it is being done on foreign soil anyway" does nothing to alleviate my concerns or provide the solution I'm seeking. In fact, it makes it worse. It now appears that not only are we not the ones inspecting incoming frieght, but that we also are relying on others to tell us what's in them to begin with.

 

If the Coast Guard is still going to be responsible for Port Security, how come no one is paying attention to their concerns?

A link to a portion of the actual USCG assesment released yesterday

If you don't want to read the link, here's the gist of it

The Coast Guard expressed all these concerns over Operations, Personnel and Foreign Influence...only to have their report covered up in the rush to suck up to an "ally".

This deal still stinks.

And to top it off, I've just found out there's a Miami based company suing in a UK court to challenge DP's takeover! Still looking for more info on this...

From Here

@BTA: I still say there's a big difference between property leased to a foreign nation or sites operated by corporations based on foreign soil...and critical sites under the jurisdiction of a foreign government.

[ March 01, 2006, 01:03: Message edited by: Hacken Slash ]

 

DISCLAIMER: I'm sorry if this post offends anyone. However, I would be less than honest if I was to be any less direct.

I honestly don't see why the two outcomes are considered mutually exclusive. And I'm sorry for being blunt to the point of rudeness, but it seems like paranoia to me. Sure, no-one's flown a plane into the Rialto Tower in Melbourne, but we've had an embassy bombing and nightclub/restaurant bombings overseas (targeted at Australian nationals) - and while they have given us pause, they certainly haven't generated the sort of hysteria that seems to be evident here. Be cautious, yes - but this is way beyond caution.

If this was a rushed-through action designed to generate money and for political reasons, then yes, that's a serious problem. I won't linger on the ironies of it; cronyism and subversion of meritocratic principles shouldn't be tolerated. If it's been reviewed and checked thoroughly, and hasn't been rammed through (which, from where I'm standing, doesn't look to be the case), then I'm not sure where the basis for objection lies, except in stereotyping.

Re: security - the simple fact is that people can be "gotten to" no matter where they're from, which country they were born in or what religion they follow. There is always a way, and that's the nature of the beast, unfortunately. If the deal is blocked over objections to a UAE state company operating the port, does anyone seriously think that a potential terrorist strike still couldn't be facilitated through the company that does take the lease, or by other means entirely? If it's a matter of stopping or preventing possible attacks - I hate to sound like a pessimist, but from an intelligence and screening perspective, it's better to go with the (potential) devil you know (and have on a leash) than any of the ones you don't.

Failing that, does anyone think that nationalising the ports would work as an alternate solution?

 

You have to admit there's one great thing about the port deal: seeing Bush's supporters staggering around like they've been clubbed with a bat. Which they have been. (And all the rest of us too, of course.) Face it; the guy's a snake.

 

I agree, Cernak. It's been fun watching the convoluted explainations coming from some quarters of how this port deal is a "good thing" for America.