What a crock February 21, 2006 Posted by Murdoc Bush backs transfer of U.S. ports to Dubai firm Am I missing something? Or is this stupid? Updated: February 21, 2006 at 9:56 pm ◀ “Where are the carriers?” Ladies and Gentlemen: ACE has entered the building ▶ Comments Yes, this story for the most part is pure jibberish. First off, the ports in the US are controlled by the Port Authorities. A state/local governing body. Customs and the Coast guard control port security. Port authorities, often will contract out management of terminals (not the port itself) to various firms. So this company is taking over the management of select terminals in several ports. You can have several firms controlling several different terminals in the same port. The long story short – this is big to do about nothing but scare mongering. It would take the news media about five minutes to investigate and find the truth. http://www.aapa-ports.org/industryinfo/americasports.htm I was watching this on FOX news earlier today, and I’m surprised by how ignorant people can be. First, many people think that the UAE is a terrorist country – This is untrue. UAE is one of our allies in the Iraq war. Second, many think that the port security will be controlled by this company, which will allow terrorists to smuggle weapons into the country – This is also highly untrue. Like jAMES said, the security is controlled by US customs, not the company. The company has no say in deciding which packages go through and which don’t. And another idea: what if the company was Japanese? Would this deal go through? Yeah, and isn’t this P&O we’re talking about here? Sure, the emirate owns the company, but the company itself and most of its management is about as British as you can get. With respect to Japan An example of a recent public/private partnership is between the Port of Portland (Oregon) and Toyota Logistics Services Inc. In January 2005, these two entities celebrated the completion of a jointly-developed $40 million auto import and processing facility at the Port’s Terminal 4. As a result of the partnership, Toyota invested approximately $30 million in new buildings and facilities while the Port of Portland invested $10 million, primarily in new a dock and 1,700 linear feet of riverfront restoration, as well as landscaping, environmental, pavement and lighting improvements. I see no issue with this. Port security is a government run thing. Everything is manangement stuff. I’m too ignorant to make an intelligent comment on this. I have two questions for you folks: 1.) How much of the kerfluffle is due to labor interests’ lobbying? 2.) It seems from my (woefully underinformed) POV that a Middle Eastern company is inherently more vulnerable to Islamist infiltration than, say, one in Japan or Sweden. Corollary: How much does this matter? As pointed out above, security isn’t their baliwick. Is it? I don’t have a problem with it. The company was vetted by multiple Fed Agencies, and met all the criteria for being awarded the contract. This is political grandstanding, media hype (and myopia on the part of most), and has bigoted overtones. I have some questions of my own: http://bitheads.blogspot.com/2006/02/are-we-asking-right-questions.html Hell yeah, this isn’t a problem. It’s just like contracting with a USSR company to watch our nukes. I mean, it’s just managment, right. They couldn’t have actually stolen them or launched them against us. Not if everything worked just right anyway. I’ll bet this idea was from the same crack batch that gave us Harriet Meyers. According to reports I’m seeing bouncing around the net general pace of the joint chiefs has reportedly given the statement in an interview that the EU a he has been letting us use their airspace their bases helps maintain those bases and with a parent Lee had no problems with them further Secretary Rumsfeld has stated that our aircraft carriers have been making port calls in the UAE, and they are serviced and supplied there. We have a tradition of good military to military cooperation with the UAE, including selling them U.S. made military aircraft. So, why would anyone want to disassociate themselves from that good friend? If they are good friend, why would we not accept investment dollars from them? Is the message to the sense here that it’s just fine and dandy for a British company to operate our ports but not a middle eastern company? We’ve gone to a lot of trouble trying to make friends in the region. those efforts, those lives, will end up being in vain, were we to turn our back on that process now. I was watching this on FOX news earlier today, and I’m surprised by how ignorant people can be. >>>>Do you mean the people who watch FOX? First, many people think that the UAE is a terrorist country – This is untrue. UAE is one of our allies in the Iraq war. >>>>>Didn’t two of the 9/11 hijackers come from the UEA and weren’t UAE banks a major source of terrorist money transfers? Some friends. he company has no say in deciding which packages go through and which don’t. When the UAE company takes over it will be easy for terrorists to inflitrate mangement and change manifests to allow packages with unpleasent surpises inside to get through. They will also be able to get inside the ports and get first hand intelligence of the port operations And another idea: what if the company was Japanese? >>>>Would arab terrorists be able to inflitrate a Japanese company? I think they would stick out . Trust Bush. He has never been wrong I personally think its a great idea. You now have very OBVIOUS targets for infiltration. The Terrorists, thinking the terminals will be easy to infiltrate will try to go through there. End result? We actually narrow the targets down and can focus more on the shipments coming through those ports and terminals. Its the old ‘Give them something to shoot at/steal/blow up/infiltrate that looks easy, and when they show up with the goods we give them a nice set of stanless steel bracelets and a long sit down with someone hanging on thier every word.