Bush will veto attempts to stop Dubai based company run our ports

[Miss Jasmine]

We'd have lines of ships all the way back to China.

LOL, you caught my post before I edited. Let me point out that I know DHS still has something to do with security at the ports, but still look at all the messes DHS has made and/or caused.

 

[Nana Annie]

As a sure sign of the approaching end of the world, Jimmy Carter backs Bush on port deal.

While there is little reality in the hyperventilation underway that the deal will in any concrete way make our ports less safe, this is a bad political move on Bush's part. People don't care that the folks working at the ports will still be Americans, as they are now working for the Bristish P&O company... they just have visions of guys running around our ports in turbines and long white robes when thinking about the deal. Nor do they care that the sudden alarm of the operation moving from a British owned company to an Arab owned company will only throw fire on the Arab world notion that America is purely anti-Muslim and anti-Arab. Nor do they care that all existing security programs and requirements would still be in place. Nor do they care that Homeland Security will have access to the ports and be able to review their operation. Nor do they care that the UAE is the only country now implimenting the new post-9/11 shipping container security rules. Nor do they care that post-9/11 the UAE is still one of the most pro-Western countries in the Arab world.

None of that matters now that people are running around going "OMG, Arabs are going to be running our ports!" If any of you have middle-eastern friends, be sure to express that outrage to them the next time you see them.

Actually, this is one of the concerns of both the republicans and democrats against this sale. Right now there is no legislation in place that requires port owners to employ American citizens. According to what I have read, that is one of the pieces of legislature that is being crafted as we speak - to require all port employees to be American citizens. One of the concerns it addresses is that the new company could employ their own citizens, making it harder to ensure the safety of our ports.

 

[charlie,nj]

“In the talk-show furor over the transfer of P&O to Dubai Ports World, there has been little reference to the mechanics of port management in the U.S. Over 80 percent of the terminals in the Port of Los Angeles, for example — the biggest in the U.S. — are run by foreign-owned companies. U.S. ports are owned by State authorities, and the workers who actually offload the ships that dock there are the same unionized Americans who belong to the International Longshoremen's Association regardless of which company hires them. Dubai Ports will not "own" the U.S. facilities, but will inherit the P&O's contracts to run them, with no changes in the dockside personnel or the U.S. government security operations that currently apply to them.”


.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

Actually, this is one of the concerns of both the republicans and democrats against this sale. Right now there is no legislation in place that requires port owners to employ American citizens. According to what I have read, that is one of the pieces of legislature that is being crafted as we speak - to require all port employees to be American citizens. One of the concerns it addresses is that the new company could employ their own citizens, making it harder to ensure the safety of our ports.

Yeah cuz American Citizens have never done anything to hurt the people of this country.

 

[MAKmom]

Playing Devils Advocate::::

President Bush called on opponents to explain why they opposed a Middle Eastern firm taking over when they did not oppose a British company being in control.

CNN's Wolf just explained this: A British Company has control. This United Arab Group is not a Company but a Goverment.

 

[eclectics]

As with most political decisions, follow the money trail....

 

[dennis99ss]

Well, think of it this way. The port authority owns the entire port (I know this is a generalization) and then different companies own individual terminals. Kind of like a condo project, with one governing body who regulates trade, etc. But, the port authority is the entity that works with the Government on security, as well as other issues affecting the Port. As I understand it, where the company controls the Port, the company acts as the port authority. Tell me if this is not the correct assumption. For example


From the Port of Houston Authority Govt. Relations Dept./Section

The government relations department acts as the liaison among the Port Authority and its local, state and federal government stakeholders.

The department's functions include informing and educating elected officials and regulatory agencies on issues that affect the PHA by hosting briefing sessions and guided tours of the port as well as responding to requests.

On-going key issues include appropriations for the Houston Ship Channel deepening and widening project, grants for port security, securing funds for transportation projects important to the port and legislation to improve the PHA's operations and efficiency.

Since fiscal year 1998, the port, working with our Harris County delegation and senators in Washington, has successfully attracted more than $525 million in federal appropriations. These funds assist the Port of Houston Authority with integral projects such as the Houston Ship Channel widening and deepening, port security grants from the Transportation Security Administration, maintenance dredging of the Houston Ship Channel, the NOAA’s PORTS navigation system, SAFETEA-LU intermodal transportation projects and various other projects associated with the port.

On the state level, the port has successfully worked with our Harris County delegation in Austin the last three sessions to pass legislation:

• Allowing the creation of the Port of Houston Authority International Corporation to sell our expertise to foreign ports.
• Exempting green coffee and raw cocoa stored in Harris County from inventory taxes.
• Allowing the port to send information about our Small Business Development Program to prospective vendors in bid packages.
• Authorizing purchases for more than $25,000 during emergencies to protect the port, without going through normal procurement procedures.
• Protecting the port’s sensitive security information from disclosure.
• Allowing 30-year leases of port property.
• Supporting the start and funding of the Texas Emission Reduction Program to help the Houston region meet the clean air goals of the State Implementation Plan.
• Allowing Texas ports to use devices to electronically read the magnetic strip on drivers’ licenses in order to provide a temporary pass to port visitors.
• Allowing ports to contract directly with the federal and state governments for goods and services. This is particularly helpful for port security purchases and jointly contracting on dredging projects.
• Modifying existing laws authorizing the creation of a freight rail district in Harris County and surrounding counties to solve community mobility issues associated with at-grade rail crossings and safety.

 

[Geoff_M]

Dubai Ports will not "own" the U.S. facilities, but will inherit the P&O's contracts to run them, with no changes in the dockside personnel or the U.S. government security operations that currently apply to them.”

Also lost in all of the visions in peoples' heads of dock workers running around shouting "Allah Ackbar" is the fact that workers at the docks (be they longshoremen or port management) will still be subjected to government background checks and other security protocols. But it's all gone "political" now and facts are secondary to emotion and incriminations.

 

[DVCPAT]

Also lost in all of the visions in peoples' heads of dock workers running around shouting "Allah Ackbar" is the fact that workers at the docks (be they longshoremen or port management) will still be subjected to government background checks and other security protocols. But it's all gone "political" now and facts are secondary to emotion and incriminations.

I don’t know, maybe we should let them control the secret service department.

 

[eclectics]

Also lost in all of the visions in peoples' heads of dock workers running around shouting "Allah Ackbar" is the fact that workers at the docks (be they longshoremen or port management) will still be subjected to government background checks and other security protocols. But it's all gone "political" now and facts are secondary to emotion and incriminations.

Here in N.Y. the Port Authority controls the piers, docks, bridges, tunnels, airports, and water ports. Just what exactly is this company going to "run" or "control"?

 

[DawnCt1]

“In the talk-show furor over the transfer of P&O to Dubai Ports World, there has been little reference to the mechanics of port management in the U.S. Over 80 percent of the terminals in the Port of Los Angeles, for example — the biggest in the U.S. — are run by foreign-owned companies. U.S. ports are owned by State authorities, and the workers who actually offload the ships that dock there are the same unionized Americans who belong to the International Longshoremen's Association regardless of which company hires them. Dubai Ports will not "own" the U.S. facilities, but will inherit the P&O's contracts to run them, with no changes in the dockside personnel or the U.S. government security operations that currently apply to them.”


.

I can really see both sides of this debate and I really think that it is one of those things that sound worse than it is in reality. We are in a global economy and this is a company that does this type of work. Ports that our military depends upon through out the world are managed by this company. There is the consideration that if we want to bring the Arab world into our sphere of influence we have to do business with them. I agree with that. One or two of the hijackers was from the UAE but I think that they have made significant changes since then. On the other hand, it seems so logical that these docks be controlled by American businesses EXCEPT they haven't been. Two of the ironies here is that the Democrats have finally recognized and acknowledged the war on terror and the biggest irony is; the Democrats are engaging in racial profiling. Why not solve the issue and give the contracts to Haliburton?

 

[punkin]

I hope the bonehead does try to veto it. The type of people who voted for him are incapable of delving into complex explanations. They will hear "ragheads own American ports" and Bush's approval ratings will plummet.

 

[DawnCt1]

I hope the bonehead does try to veto it. The type of people who voted for him are incapable of delving into complex explanations. They will hear "ragheads own American ports" and Bush's approval ratings will plummet.

So let me understand your point of view. You must have an opinion on whether this is a bad idea or a good idea but it seems the complexities of that doesn't much matter to you. Even if its good for the country or hurts the country is immaterial, as long as it hurts President Bush. Sadly, that seems to be exactly what motivates Democrats these days.

 

[MAKmom]

I can really see both sides of this debate and I really think that it is one of those things that sound worse than it is in reality. We are in a global economy and this is a company that does this type of work. Ports that our military depends upon through out the world are managed by this company. There is the consideration that if we want to bring the Arab world into our sphere of influence we have to do business with them. I agree with that. One or two of the hijackers was from the UAE but I think that they have made significant changes since then. On the other hand, it seems so logical that these docks be controlled by American businesses EXCEPT they haven't been. Two of the ironies here is that the Democrats have finally recognized and acknowledged the war on terror and the biggest irony is; the Democrats are engaging in racial profiling. Why not solve the issue and give the contracts to Haliburton?

Do you support the UAE buying the ports?

 

[bsnyder]

I hope the bonehead does try to veto it. The type of people who voted for him are incapable of delving into complex explanations. They will hear "ragheads own American ports" and Bush's approval ratings will plummet.

Does that mean you're for or against the deal.

Personally, I don't know enough about the deal to know whether it's a good idea or a collosal mistake. Other than knee-jerk reactions, does anyone here?

I do see it as a good thing that attention has been called to the oversight process, and it will be re-vetted. That can only be beneficial. Could be, at the end of the day, most members of Congress will be satisfied that it should go forward.

 

[punkin]

So let me understand your point of view. You must have an opinion on whether this is a bad idea or a good idea but it seems the complexities of that doesn't much matter to you. Even if its good for the country or hurts the country is immaterial, as long as it hurts President Bush. Sadly, that seems to be exactly what motivates Democrats these days.

No. Whether he vetos it or not is immaterial. His veto will be overturned by Congress in this matter (the republican rats are already deserting Bush's ship)

My only point is that politically, it is a stupid thing to do.

 

[Independent]

One or two of the hijackers was from the UAE

Uh...try 15 of the 19

 

[bsnyder]

Statement from John McCain:

"We all need to take a moment and not rush to judgment on this matter without knowing all the facts. The President’s leadership has earned our trust in the war on terror, and surely his administration deserves the presumption that they would not sell our security short. Dubai has cooperated with us in the war and deserves to be treated respectfully. By all means, let’s do due diligence, get briefings, seek answers to all relevant questions and assurances that defense officials and the intelligence community were involved in the examination and approval of this transaction. In other words, let’s make a judgment when we possess all the pertinent facts. Until then, all we can offer is heat and little light to the discussion.”

 

[wvrevy]

As usual, Dawn, you're completely incorrect in your attempt to bring Democrats down to the level of your chosen party. "Racial profiling" is the practice of labelling a certain section of society based solely on physical traits. The difference here is that we (should) know we can't trust the government that owns this company. Let me state it again, so that you might understand it: they acknowledged the Taliban. What more evidence do you need that this is not an entity that should be entrusted with something this important?

Oh, I know all the apologists are poopoo'ing the importance of it. Maybe they've even got a point in that it isn't as bad as it seems on the surface. But not being as bad still means that it is bad. There is no reason to take even the slightest chance of this type, other than the fact of the administration's ties to the government of this country.

But that's ok. Don't let me stop you guys from defending the indefensible. Frankly, I'm enjoying watching as it becomes harder and harder to back up the incompetancy in the White House.

Oh, and Geoff...the only people I know that wear "turbines" are your everyday, garden variety cyborgs from the future. (Sorry, I'm not the type that usually critiques spelling, but that one just cracked me up)

 

[Tiziminchac]

Personally I think the contract should go to an American company. For no other reason than this is America! This all reminds me of that news story I heard a while back about China manufacturing our naval vessels in the future. I haven't heard anything else about that, I wonder how that's going?

I support this president and his administration on most points. But this port thing is one I don't agree with. I don't know enough of the facts to make a truly informed decision. It sounds like it may not be so bad. After all, a foreign company already had the contract. And Americans will still be in charge of port security. But something just doesn't feel right. Like another poster asked, just what is this company going to do at the ports? I guess I should go watch the news...