# Control of U.S. Ports **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 22, 2006, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553 "2006-02-22T00:12:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2006, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553/41 "2006-02-22T16:22:29Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > That’s true–but what if, by running the ports, secret A-rab superheroes are able to be within range to fly up and use their superstrength to **prevent** that 30,000 lb. weight from falling on the IT room? Oh yeah? Well-well-well- what if the evil A-rabs have piece of an Islamonium meteorite that turns A-rab superheroes into evil terrorists? Then they would use their superpowers for evil instead of the American Way, and we would be _so_ fucked!! > [@](#): > > Or, even better, what if, by running the ports, A-rab IT people realize that you shouldn’t keep all your servers in one location, and that you should have remote backups of your servers, and that you should practice other proper security measures? Then they don’t even have to be superheroes–they just have to be businesspeople! Unless they are wearing their lead-lined dishdashs, Islamonium can turn even hard-working businessmen into shifty-eyed suicide bombers. Can we take that chance? ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2006, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553/42 "2006-02-22T16:25:36Z")
I think, on what we know so far, I’m with Bush and Carter on this one. I don’t see the big deal. Then again, just as with stem cell research, the President is claiming a “principle” behind his actions which he doesn’t seem to believe in any other situation I know of. He’s not vetoed a single bill in two terms, and he’s certainly never stuck up for Congress interfering with the sale of some business to a foriegn company. He never threatened to veto Congressional interference with China. Never really been much of an anti-protectionist. I think the fact that Bush is willing to claim that national security is so dire that he can treat laws of Conrgess as if they were mere “suggestions” also stands somewhat in contrast to his extreme zeal in going to bat for this one particular company. It’s pretty darn bizarre. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2006, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553/43 "2006-02-22T16:55:02Z")
Don’t forget this fact: as Iraq descends into civil war, the USA is going to need friends in the Persian Gulf. I expect that the UAE is probably where we will evacuate our troops to, when the Shia/Sunni civil War begins…so it is probably wise that bush stand up for the UAE. However, more to the point-does anybody really know why running big ports is not of interest to any USA-based companies? i mean, there must be money in it. And as for the farce 9that ship registration has become), i think it high time that shipping companies register their ships in real countries, not flag of convenience places like Liberia. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2006, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553/44 "2006-02-22T16:59:25Z")
It is of interest to exactly one American company. Haliburton. Which I’m sure we can all agree would inspire even louder cries of bloody murder if they were taking over the contract. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2006, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553/45 "2006-02-22T17:56:14Z")
To the extent that this would cede any aspect of control over security matters to this company (or any company), I have the same objections to this that I had to the idea of privatizing airport security screening. The primary function of a business is to keep itself afloat, and generally profitable. Thus, I fear that if a decision doesn’t make “good business sense” it isn’t made. Perhaps this is why only 5% of containers are screened - it doesn’t make good business sense to do otherwise. I don’t give a shit about business sense. I am far more concerned with “security sense.” Thus, I would prefer that security is treated like a matter of general welfare, where the primary objective is to protect the well-being of Americans and America. This is true whether it is a “Great British” company or a UAE governmental enterprise, although the latter does give me greater pause. What if a leader like Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz came into control of that governmental enterprise? Why not subvert the security of some other country’s ports if it suited us for some reason? ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2006, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553/46 "2006-02-22T17:59:22Z")
**Hentor** , security is still under US jurisdiction. The UAE company only manages the ports. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2006, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553/47 "2006-02-22T18:22:16Z")
[The WaPo](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/21/AR2006022101924.html) has a pretty good overview of what’s actually involved in the deal. > [@](#): > > Terminal operators typically lease facilities from a local port authority and are responsible for attracting shipping lines to use their terminal, where their main task is to move the thousands of containers that come in and out onto the right vessels, rail cars or trucks. In the process, they must maintain security at the facility, with the government providing backup and oversight. So: the port operator handles security, using US union workers, under US government oversight. Call me paranoid, but is there any guarantee that the Bush Administration would loudly object if the port operator wanted to go non-union, or even non-American? And doesn’t it seem possible that if the port operator does the actual running of security operations, it could get contraband into the country without being checked? My answer is, _ **I don’t know** _. This is the sort of thing where the average citizen absolutely needs to be able to rely on his/her government to do the required due diligence on a deal like this. But this is _exactly_ the sort of thing that the Bush Administration shows little interest in doing their homework on. And this case seems to be all too typical. [Bush didn’t know about the deal until it was done](http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0206/304977.html). [Neither did Rumsfeld](http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/21/rumsfeld-not-consulted/), and he was supposed to be one of the people to sign off on it. And the Bush Administration can’t say [whether a mandatory 45-day investigation was done](http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/22/legally-required-investigation/). Congress was clearly out of the loop. I don’t know about you folks, but I’ve yet to see a cite naming one specific person who has spoken up and said they did vet it. (And if you can find a cite, and the person is DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, that’s worse than no vetting at all, AFAIAC.) So yeah, I’m worried. Not because I know enough to have an informed opinion of the actual security risks, but because it isn’t clear that the people who _are_ supposed to know this stuff as part of their day job have been on the case. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2006, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553/48 "2006-02-22T18:26:19Z")
> [@Krokodil](#): > > I wouldn’t dream of rejecting it because “it’s Arab.” I might reject it because the company will soon be owned by a foreign government (Do any European governments own operating rights to any of our ports? My impression is that they do not) or because the new owners have an uncomfortably cozy history with al Qaeda (and are one of three sovreigh states to recognize them diplomatically). Hmm? Why would the UAE or anybody else “recognize” al-Qaeda “diplomatically”? Al-Qaeda does not even claim to be a sovereign state, does it? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2006, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553/49 "2006-02-22T19:31:56Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Hmm? Why would the UAE or anybody else “recognize” al-Qaeda “diplomatically”? Al-Qaeda does not even claim to be a sovereign state, does it? **Tamerlane** ’s already answered this one: the UAE was one of three countries to recognize the Taliban government of Afghanistan back before 9/11. Not the same thing as AQ, no matter how cozy they may have been. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2006, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553/50 "2006-02-22T21:00:21Z")
1. It’s not racism. Dubai Ports is not just another company: it’s a _government owned_ operation, which enhances possibilities of meddling by intelligence services. 2. I second **RTFirefly** ’s concerns. It was appropriate for members (Democrat and Republican) of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to demand that they be briefed on the review process. To say that we should just trust the likes of Chertoff et al is laughable, given their past performance. 3. The problem with **The Flying Dutchman** ’s computer scenario, is that it involves the destruction of a multi-billion dollar business owned by Dubai. Interesting though. 4. **Sam Stone** asks the right questions. From today’s [WSJ](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114062315169080165.html), (sub req) I learn the following: > [@](#): > > Terminal operators represent just one of many links in a typical international supply chain. Typically, cargo is loaded into a container by a manufacturer or consolidation center overseas. It is then trucked to a foreign port, put on a ship and brought to the U.S. > > On the U.S. side of the transaction, a container is taken off a vessel at a terminal and moved by truck or train to a cargo receiver. While terminal operators play a role in security, including the fencing **and access by employees, dockworkers and truck drivers** , they don’t _normally_ touch the cargo inside the box. Security is provided by law enforcement such as the Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection. > > Most U.S. container ports consist of multiple terminals, each of which is leased to a separate operator, such as P&O. Such terminal operators are responsible for developing and operating the terminal and may subcontract to a stevedoring company that supplies the labor to load and unload the ships. Stevedores usually hire unionized dockworkers who are U.S. citizens. All emphasis added. Note that Dubai could conceivably have its leases cancelled by the local Port Authorities. If I’m reading this correctly, the port operator could provide access to containers by baddies already located in the US. To the extent that they’re not involved in the actual _screening_ of cargo though, my worries are lessened. The big risks involve bombs packed into containers abroad: it’s not clear to me whether the local operators could help conceal such a shipment. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2006, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553/51 "2006-02-22T21:11:15Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > It is rather telling that Bush is threatening to veto any bill which derails the sale The way he has been pulling up the cushions and moving the furniture trying to find his veto pen, the White House looks just like one would imagine from those “outgoing Clintonistas vandalized the place” stories. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2006, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553/52 "2006-02-22T21:19:20Z")
> [@SmackFu](#): > > Bush is going to have a hard time wiggling out of this one, even though he’s right. Bush is in this mess because of his administration’s institutional attitude that the Teeming Millions should just sit down, shut up, and accept it as a given that he’s right. It just plain never occurred to them that they’d need to explain themselves, even when they could have done so fairly easily if they’d done it up front. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2006, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553/53 "2006-02-22T22:11:24Z")
I’m inclined to agree with Jimmy Carter and the more conservative dopers in this thread – I don’t think the government of the UAE is acting as a front for Al Qaeda. The deal in and of itself does not pose a security risk. The larger questions that will undoubtedly surface as to the operations of the nation’s ports will be interesting, though. I think hardly anyone (including many congresscritters) had any idea how they worked. But I will take \*enormous \* delight in anything that brings discomfiture to this president, including a bipartisan revolt of Congress, and today’s disclosure that he found out about the deal – which he swore up and down to defend to the death – a few days ago. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2006, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553/54 "2006-02-22T22:20:23Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > I don’t get it. How is this scenario enabled by the current situation? Who knows? Maybe I’m in Lala land. However I never in my wildest dreams envisioned the fall of the WTC towers. Several points that I consider to make the scenario viable. Dubai is 96% muslim for whatever you think that is worth. Dubai 's citizenship is Emirati, (Arab), even though the majority of the population, (80%) is otherwise, hence a racist state. Racists spell trouble for the rest of us. Dubai has ethnic , religious and geographic conection with Saudi Arabia and Yeman which have exhibited major undercurrents of terrorism in their societies. Do we know all we need to know about Dubai ? Dubai’s excess revenue over expenditures for one year are roughly equivalent to the purchase cost of the entire P&O Steam and Navigation Company. Hence a sacrifice in the name of Allah or in the cause of the Islamist struggle is entirely feasible. The scenario doesn’t even involver a loss of life! The assumption of course requires a heirarchy of control over the computer networks of a corporation. Presumably Dubai, as ultimate owner has access to all the passwords neccessary to institute a complete and total shutdown of the ports. Unless the CIA have been on the case illegally, I doubt the US government has that access to affect a timely recovery. Is the scenario likely? Not any more than the fall of the twin towers were 5 years ago. But it is possible. What if the aqenda of the Dubai government, small as it is was usurped by al Quaeda types or secret sleeper Islamists demanding the withdrawal of US troops in Afghanistan, Iraq and any other muslim country as well as the release of all imprisoned terrorists. “We have the backup discs for a price” I don’t see an effective response other than what James Bond, Austin Powers or Jack Ryan could provide. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2006, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553/55 "2006-02-22T22:22:09Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > And this case seems to be all too typical. [Bush didn’t know about the deal until it was done](http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0206/304977.html). [Neither did Rumsfeld](http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/21/rumsfeld-not-consulted/), and he was supposed to be one of the people to sign off on it. And the Bush Administration can’t say [whether a mandatory 45-day investigation was done](http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/22/legally-required-investigation/). Congress was clearly out of the loop. I don’t know about you folks, but I’ve yet to see a cite naming one specific person who has spoken up and said they did vet it. (And if you can find a cite, and the person is DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, that’s worse than no vetting at all, AFAIAC.) > > So yeah, I’m worried. Not because I know enough to have an informed opinion of the actual security risks, but because it isn’t clear that the people who _are_ supposed to know this stuff as part of their day job have been on the case. Why should the president be involved in this decision? It’s a business deal that has little, if anything, to do with national security. It doesn’t require his approval, just the approval of whatever regulatory agencies are responisble. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2006, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553/56 "2006-02-22T22:46:29Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Why should the president be involved in this decision? It’s a business deal that has little, if anything, to do with national security. It doesn’t require his approval, just the approval of whatever regulatory agencies are responisble. If it was so unimportant that he didn’t even know such a decision was being made, then why’s he got his hackles up over it? There’s a mismatch here. So, what regulatory agencies _were_ responsible? _Who_ reviewed this puppy? Nobody’s name seems to be on this decision, and nobody’s claiming that the one specific legal requirement applying to such a decision was heeded. Scotty sez “this is a deal that is supposed to have been scrutinized.” “Supposed”?? I want the name of the top guy who was supposed to actually _understand_ this deal, who signed off on it. Doesn’t seem like too much to ask. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2006, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553/57 "2006-02-22T22:51:57Z")
> [@Measure for Measure](#): > > 1. **Sam Stone** asks the right questions. From today’s [WSJ](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114062315169080165.html), (sub req) I learn the following: All emphasis added. Note that Dubai could conceivably have its leases cancelled by the local Port Authorities. > > If I’m reading this correctly, the port operator could provide access to containers by baddies already located in the US. To the extent that they’re not involved in the actual _screening_ of cargo though, my worries are lessened. The big risks involve bombs packed into containers abroad: it’s not clear to me whether the local operators could help conceal such a shipment. Here’s the problem (well, two actually): 1. The WSJ and the WaPo seem to disagree about the level of the port operator’s involvement in security and screening. 2. Only a small percentage - 5%, IIRC - of inbound containers passing through our ports are screened on the way in. (On two occasions, [ABC News](http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=129441&page=1) has smuggled spent uranium into the U.S. just to show it can be done.) I’d hate to find out too late that the port operator had the ability to increase the odds of a particular shipment avoiding screening from 95% to 100%. ---
**Author:** ![Bomzaway](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e480ec/32.png) [@Bomzaway](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bomzaway)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2006, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553/58 "2006-02-22T22:57:29Z")
The concerns are mostly unfounded and a lot of hot air. I heard on NPR this morning that almost 90% or the ports on the west coast are run by foreign companies. See [this link](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5228775) for more. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2006, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553/59 "2006-02-22T23:08:02Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > If it was so unimportant that he didn’t even know such a decision was being made, then why’s he got his hackles up over it? There’s a mismatch here. He “got his hackles up” because Congress is giving him heat about it. The real question is why does Congress have its collective hackles up over it. Remember, this was not a sale to a foreign concern-- it already was owned by a foreign concern. > [@](#): > > So, what regulatory agencies _were_ responsible? _Who_ reviewed this puppy? Nobody’s name seems to be on this decision, and nobody’s claiming that the one specific legal requirement applying to such a decision was heeded. As I said in either this thread or the Pit thread, Bush needs to get out in front of this and explain it before it takes on a life of its own. I would assume, and I’m just guessing, that the Commerce Dept and the Transportation Dept would both be invovled. Possibly Homeland Security, but it’s not clear. We do need a full explanation from the administration, but you seem to be assuming something is wrong w/o knowing all the facts. Most of the press reports appear to me to be nothing more than scaremongering. > [@](#): > > Scotty sez “this is a deal that is supposed to have been scrutinized.” “Supposed”?? I want the name of the top guy who was supposed to actually _understand_ this deal, who signed off on it. Doesn’t seem like too much to ask. Scotty has to have one of the worst jobs in the country. I don’t think anyone tells him anything. I certainly will agree that Bush is making a big political mistake here. But that’s all it appears to be at this point. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553/60 "2006-02-23T01:08:01Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > He “got his hackles up” because Congress is giving him heat about it. The real question is why does Congress have its collective hackles up over it. Remember, this was not a sale to a foreign concern-- it already was owned by a foreign concern. > As I said in either this thread or the Pit thread, Bush needs to get out in front of this and explain it before it takes on a life of its own. I would assume, and I’m just guessing, that the Commerce Dept and the Transportation Dept would both be invovled. Possibly Homeland Security, but it’s not clear. We do need a full explanation from the administration, but you seem to be assuming something is wrong w/o knowing all the facts. Most of the press reports appear to me to be nothing more than scaremongering. > Scotty has to have one of the worst jobs in the country. I don’t think anyone tells him anything. > > I certainly will agree that Bush is making a big political mistake here. But that’s all it appears to be at this point. kos has links about the uae refusing to recognize israel–if that disqualifies an elected government (hamas) from sitting at the table, why should a bunch of hereditary tribal sheikhs be cut any slack? As FDL notes, the United Arab Emirates does not recognize Israel and have a history of anti-semitic behavior. And Lieberman’s allegiance to Bush trumps the fact that nothing in the past four years should give any of us confidence that Bush or his national security apparatus can provide the necessary safeguards to protect our nation’s ports from being used as transit points for terrorists seeking to strike the nation. Congressional Republicans are abandoning the administration en masse. It’s quite telling that if the matter where put to a vote today, the likely 99-1 tally would see just one Senator standing tall and proud with the administration. And that’s our old friend Joe Lieberman. Bush’s truest friend. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553.md?page=4)