# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![gitfiddle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/898d66/32.png) [@gitfiddle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gitfiddle)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553/81 "2006-02-23T15:51:11Z")
Relating to the title of this thread, most sources stress that the Dubai Ports company is not going to be “controlling” or “running” these ports. [Here](http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0222/p01s01-usfp.html?s=hns): > [@](#): > > “I’ve never quite seen a story so distorted so quickly,” says Esther de Ipolyi, a public-relations executive who works with the port of Houston. “It’s like I go to an apartment building that has 50 apartments, and I rent an apartment. This does not mean I took over the management of the whole building.” Dubai Ports member [says](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5229449) that the government does control the company. Not to mention the people who are running the company are Australian, American, etc. There doesn’t seem to be much of any NEW [security concern](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5228338). The ports are badly protected, but this doesn’t seem to be any change. Maybe I’m wrong, but I haven’t seen ANYTHING that makes me question this. Then again, I’m not up for election any time soon. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553/82 "2006-02-23T16:26:20Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > 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. Scotty is reminding me more & more of Ron Ziegler. Agreed…but this is a surprisingly huge political mistake. It’s like the Bushies have gone politically tone-deaf. Even though there’s been a background low-level feeling ever since 9/11 that our ports are not as secure as they could be – let’s sell 'em to the A-rabs. Nobody’ll care. This must be the “political capital” that Bush was planning to spend – his overwhelming 52% mandate gave him the go-ahead to run roughshod over Congress and our civil liberties. I think it’s coming back to bite him in the ass. ---
**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 23, 2006, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553/83 "2006-02-23T16:57:15Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Let’s see: Rumsfeld was part of the group that supposedly unanimously approved it, but he didn’t know about it until afterwards. Nobody else has stepped forward to say, “My department vetted this deal.” Nobody’s stepped forward to explain whether the 45-day investigation was done, and if not, why it didn’t need to be. No, Rumsfeld was not supposed to have approved this. Where do you get that from? The regulatory body in charge of this was the [Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Foreign_Investment_in_the_United_States), which : > [@](#): > > …is headed by the Secretary of the Treasury and comprises 11 U.S. agencies, including the Defense, Justice and Commerce departments, as well as (most recently) the Department of Homeland Security. The only cabinet level department head who needs to approve this is Treasury. > [@](#): > > [Analogy time:] > > George gets offered a great job in another part of the country. He goes out there to buy a house, while his wife and kids stay at home. When he gets back, he shows his family pictures of this great new house he just closed on, and his spouse asks him questions like, “Did you have an inspection done? Did you get someone to do a title search? Did you shop around to get a good rate on the mortgage?” And he gives rambling but unspecific responses that mean neither yes nor no. For some reason, they’re upset. > > 1. He tells them, “If there’s something wrong with this house, what is it? Prove that there’s a problem, or shut up.” > > 2. The spouse says, “Of course I can’t do that. That’s what I expected you to do - to hire the experts that could tell me if the roof leaked, or if the wiring was out of date, or if there was a problem with the title. I can’t see that you did that due diligence on our behalf.” > > 3. A friend of George’s who’s stopped by says, “How do you know that he didn’t have these things done? Show some evidence, or stop your bloviating.” > > 4. Spouse looks at George’s friend like he’s from another planet. > > [/Analogy] That makes no sense since the “inspection” was done. You are claiming that the inspection was shoddy, but you have no basis on which you are making that claim. The only indication that something might have gone wrong is that this deal was not referred to the “45 day approval process”, but it’s unclear to me that that was a requirement in this case, since the operations in question were already owned by a foreign company. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553/84 "2006-02-23T18:07:17Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > No, Rumsfeld was not supposed to have approved this. Where do you get that from? The regulatory body in charge of this was the [Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Foreign_Investment_in_the_United_States), which : [includes Defense.] The only cabinet level department head who needs to approve this is Treasury. So the “Committee” as a whole is purely advisory to the Secretary of the Treasury? Didn’t know that. It’s also not supported by your cite. At any rate, one of the senses in which Rumsfeld was “supposed to have approved this” was in the sense of “he was alleged to have approved this,” i.e. the Committee was supposed to have approved this _unanimously_. Except he knew nothing about it. > [@](#): > > That makes no sense since the “inspection” was done. Since this is one of the major questions in this debate, a cite ought to accompany your assertion that allegedly resolves the question. > [@](#): > > You are claiming that the inspection was shoddy, but you have no basis on which you are making that claim. No. I am claiming _we have no evidence of the nature of the alleged inspection_. Since you’re claiming the inspection was done, that’s why I’m eager for a cite. > [@](#): > > The only indication that something might have gone wrong is that this deal was not referred to the “45 day approval process”, but it’s unclear to me that that was a requirement in this case, since the operations in question were already owned by a foreign company. What does that have to do with anything? The British company wasn’t under the control of a foreign _government_. As the law says: > [@](#): > > The President or the President’s designee shall make an investigation, as described in subsection (a), in any instance in which **an entity controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government** seeks to engage in any merger, acquisition, or takeover which could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the United States that could affect the national security of the United States. Unless you have information that the British concern that has been operating the ports either is owned or controlled by or is acting on behalf of the British government. Not that even that seems to matter; it doesn’t talk about whether “an entity controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government” _made the acquisition from an entity that wasn’t so controlled or acting_. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553/85 "2006-02-23T18:08:22Z")
In my previous post, “The only cabinet level department head who needs to approve this is Treasury” should have been in a quote box; it was said by **John Mace**. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553/86 "2006-02-23T18:10:55Z")
[Link to the statute](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50a/usc_sec_50a_00002170----000-.html). Let’s see how many times I need to correct one post. :smack: ---
**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 23, 2006, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553/87 "2006-02-23T18:26:13Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > The only cabinet level department head who needs to approve this is Treasury. > > So the “Committee” as a whole is purely advisory to the Secretary of the Treasury? Didn’t know that. It’s also not supported by your cite. No. Rumsfeld does not sit on the committee. Treasury heads it, but the participants from other departments are sub-cabinet level. I suppose Rumsfeld could sit on the committee if he chose to do so, but it’s not required. Where are you getting this idea that Rumsfeld sits on the committee? Why is it so hard to undertand that the committee, headed by Treasury, voted unanimously to approve this deal? > [@](#): > > Since this is one of the major questions in this debate, a cite ought to accompany your assertion that allegedly resolves the question. No. I am claiming _we have no evidence of the nature of the alleged inspection_. Since you’re claiming the inspection was done, that’s why I’m eager for a cite. I don’t understand. Do you dispute that the approval was given? If not, why would we assume that a review was not made? You’re the one claiming it wasn’t, so you’re the one who needs to give a cite. > [@](#): > > What does that have to do with anything? The British company wasn’t under the control of a foreign _government_. As the law says: > Unless you have information that the British concern that has been operating the ports either is owned or controlled by or is acting on behalf of the British government. Not that even that seems to matter; it doesn’t talk about whether “an entity controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government” _made the acquisition from an entity that wasn’t so controlled or acting_. You’re right, it does need to involve a foreign gov’t. But note that you quoted the regulation incorrectly. It’s not “or”, it’s “and”. So, the committee determined that the second part was not applicable (emphasis added): > [@](#): > > [Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS)](http://www.treas.gov/offices/international-affairs/exon-florio/) > Amendments. Section 837(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, called the “Byrd Amendment,” amended Section 721 of the Defense Production Act (the “Exon-Florio provision”). It requires an investigation in cases where: > > ``` > o the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government; and > > o the acquisition "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." > > ``` ---
**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 23, 2006, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553/88 "2006-02-23T18:41:18Z")
Hmm… The CFIUIS cite I gave in that post does list the SecDef as being a member of the committee. I’m sure I read in an analysis of this in my local paper that only SecTres was on the committeee and that all other members were sub-cabinet level. Let me see if I can dig that up. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553/89 "2006-02-23T19:05:02Z")
> [@](#): > > I don’t understand. Do you dispute that the approval was given? If not, why would we assume that a review was not made? OK, an eleven-member committee of fairly high-ranking officials voted unanimously to approve this deal. Unless life works in weird ways in meetings of Cabinet and subCabinet officialdom, it’s pretty unlikely that _the committee itself_ did whatever substantive review was done of this deal. So, who did that review, in whatever form it may have taken? > [@](#): > > You’re the one claiming it wasn’t, so you’re the one who needs to give a cite. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > I am claiming we have no evidence of the nature of the alleged inspection. Does that clarify what I’m claiming? > [@](#): > > You’re right, it does need to involve a foreign gov’t. But note that you quoted the regulation incorrectly. It’s not “or”, it’s “and”. So, the committee determined that the second part was not applicable (emphasis added): I C&P’d that quote directly from Cornell Law School’s U.S. Code webpages, and I don’t see how our cites disagree. I suppose the Committee could have determined that the second part wasn’t applicable, but it [would have had to fail to read the contract](http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5640688,00.html) to do so, apparently: > [@](#): > > Under the deal…[Dubai Ports] promised to take "all reasonable steps’’ to assist the Homeland Security Department, and it pledged to continue participating in security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials. Sounds like a security role to me. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553/90 "2006-02-23T20:05:25Z")
[Treasury Secretary Snow didn’t know about the deal either](http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=URI:urn:newsml:reuters.com:20060223:MTFH34018_2006-02-23_19-10-57_N23265870:1). ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553/91 "2006-02-23T20:13:53Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > So, what exactly is your point. We should just throw in the towel and fuck over the Ay-rabs every chance we get? No, just that the Republican talking point of “We must approve the sale to build goodwill with the Middle East” is so much Texas cow patties. I’m personally still of mixed minds on whether or not this deal is a security risk. I strongly suspect, though, that the driving motive is all about enriching Friends of George™ more than anything else. It’s interesting to note that [the White House’s “secret agreement”](http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5640688,00.html) for the deal featured this oddity: > [@](#): > > The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries. I think someone more fiscally-minded than I am could point out the ways this loophole could be used for nefarious schemes… ---
**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 23, 2006, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553/92 "2006-02-23T20:30:41Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > [Treasury Secretary Snow didn’t know about the deal either](http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=URI:urn:newsml:reuters.com:20060223:MTFH34018_2006-02-23_19-10-57_N23265870:1). Now, that is something that I find disturbing, or at least confusing since it contradicts the description of the CFIUS on its own web site. I supsect that in the next few days we’ll get a better education of what that committee is and how it works. Having been on interdepartmental committees like this at large corporations, I can see how department heads might delegate authority to deputies, but one would think that deals this big would at least cross the desk of the guy who’s dept is in charge. While I agree with his general assessment that it’s the professionals who are going to do the legwork and make the recomendations, he should at least be aware of what’s going on, if for no other reason than to forestall the type of political firestorm we’re seeing now. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553/93 "2006-02-23T20:58:16Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I supsect that in the next few days we’ll get a better education of what that committee is and how it works. This [White House Fact Sheet](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060222-11.html) on the CFIUS process and the DP World transaction might interest you, me, and everyone else here. Might as well just copy the whole thing, since it’s a governmental press release, hence doubly exempt from fair-use restrictions: > [@](#): > > **Fact Sheet: The CFIUS Process And The DP World Transaction** > > “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 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." > > - President George W. Bush, February 21, 2006 > > **President Bush Strongly Supports The Decision To Move Forward With The DP World Transaction** > > The Administration, As Required By Law, Has Reviewed The Transaction To Make Certain That It Does Not In Any Way Jeopardize National Security. Under the process conducted by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), officials carefully reviewed the national security issues raised by the transaction and its effect on our national security. Twelve Federal agencies and the government’s counterterrorism experts closely and carefully reviewed the transaction to make certain it posed no threat to national security. > > DP World Has Provided Strong Security Assurances To The United States. DP World has signed a letter of assurances making commitments to meet and maintain security standards for the port terminals that they will own and operate in the United States. There are a number of safeguards that are in place in the agreement, and the American people should feel confident that the transaction will in no way harm the security of the Nation’s ports. > > DP World’s Bid For The London-Based Peninsular And Oriental (P&O) Steam Navigation Company Was Announced Last Fall. DP World, a UAE-based commercial entity, is purchasing the U.S. subsidiary of the London-based P&O Steam Navigation Company. The announcement of DP World’s bid for P&O was made in November 2005, and the news was widely reported in the press and international financial trade publications. The formal CFIUS process was set into motion in December, and the Federal government conducted a thorough review to ensure that port security would in no way be compromised by the deal. > > The Administration Has Taken A Principled Position Based On The Security Of Our Nation And Careful Review Of The Transaction. The President has made clear that he stands firmly behind the decision to allow the DP World transaction to move forward. Preventing this transaction by a reputable company to go forward after careful review would send a terrible signal to friends and allies that investments in the United States from certain parts of the world are not welcome. > > **The Port Security Of the United States Is The Administration’s First And Foremost Concern** > > The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Is Always In Charge Of The Nation’s Port Security, Not The Private Company That Operates Facilities Within The Ports. Nothing will change with this transaction. DHS, along with the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and other Federal agencies, sets the standards for port security and ensures that all port facility owners and operators comply with these standards. > > The Transaction Is Not About Port Security Or Even Port Ownership, But Only About Operations In Port. DP World will not manage port security, nor will it own any ports. DP World would take on the functions now performed by the British firm P&O - basically the off- and on-loading of cargo. Employees will still have to be U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. No private company currently manages any U.S. port. Rather, private companies such as P&O and DP World simply manage and operate individual terminals within ports. > > \*\*Background On The CFIUS Process > \*\* > The CFIUS Process Was Rigorously Followed, And CFIUS Agencies Carefully Reviewed The Transaction. Ensuring the protection of our national security is the top priority of all members of CFIUS. In reviewing a foreign transaction, CFIUS brings together 12 Federal agencies with diverse expertise to consider transactions from a variety of perspectives and identify and analyze all national security issues. > > - > > ``` > The Department of the Treasury, which chairs CFIUS, receives notices of transactions, serves as the contact point for the private sector, establishes a calendar for review of each transaction, and coordinates the interagency process. > > ``` > > - > > ``` > During the initial 30-day review, each CFIUS member agency conducts its own internal analysis of the national security implications of the transaction under review. CFIUS also consults with the intelligence community. In this case, the Departments of Transportation and Energy were also brought in to widen the scope and add to the expertise of the CFIUS agencies involved in the review process. > > ``` > > - > > ``` > All CFIUS decisions are made by consensus of the entire committee. The review process allows any agency that sees a potential credible threat to the national security to raise those concerns. > > ``` > > - > > ``` > In the course of the review of this transaction, DHS reached an agreement with DP World to mitigate security concerns. > > ``` > > - > > ``` > DP World Has Played By The Rules, Has Cooperated With The United States, And Is From A Country That Is A Close Ally In the War on Terror. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has been a solid partner in the War on Terror. The UAE has been extremely cooperative on counter-terrorism and counter-proliferation and has provided considerable support to U.S. forces in the Gulf and to the governments and people of Iraq and Afghanistan. > > ``` > > - > > ``` > The UAE Is A Partner In Shutting Down Terror Finance Networks. The UAE has worked with us to stop terrorist financing and money laundering, including by freezing accounts, enacting aggressive anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorist financing laws and regulations, and exchanging information on people and entities suspected of being involved in those actions. > > ``` > > - > > ``` > The UAE Is An Established Partner In Protecting America's Ports. Dubai was the first Middle Eastern entity to join the Container Security Initiative (CSI) - a multinational program to protect global trade from terrorism. Dubai was also the first Middle Eastern entity to join the Department of Energy's Megaports Initiative, a program aimed at stopping illicit shipments of nuclear and other radioactive material. > > ``` > > - > > ``` > Port Security Begins Abroad. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) created the CSI to enable CBP to inspect 100% of high-risk containers at foreign seaports before they are loaded onboard vessels destined for the United States. Dubai was the first Middle Eastern entity to join CSI. Cooperation with Dubai has been outstanding and a model for other operations. > > ``` > > - > > ``` > DP World currently manages 19 container terminals and has operations in 14 countries. The United States government has a strong working relationship with DP World. > > ``` > > # # ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553/94 "2006-02-23T21:49:08Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > Agreed…but this is a surprisingly huge political mistake. It’s like the Bushies have gone politically tone-deaf. Tone deaf? [Understatement of the year](http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/23/port.security/index.html) > [@CNN](#): > > President Bush on Thursday defended his administration’s decision to allow a company from an Arab country to operate six major U.S. ports, saying, “People don’t need to worry about security.” > > “This deal wouldn’t go forward if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America,” Bush told reporters during a Cabinet meeting. And you thought Kerry’s call for global approval of US Foreign policy was a poor choice of words… Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553/95 "2006-02-23T22:00:32Z")
> [@gitfiddle](#): > > This is the first time in a long time I have agreed with Bush and I am SHOCKED that I’m one of few. I’m watching and read things in the States, and I just don’t get the uproar. Because the Usual Suspects automatically, reflexively, unthinkingly attack anything and everything Bush does. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553/96 "2006-02-23T22:05:37Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Because the Usual Suspects automatically, reflexively, unthinkingly attack anything and everything Bush does. You agree, I presume, that the Usual Suspects automatically, reflexively, unthinkingly defend anything and everything that Bush does as well? Or is this just a content-free drive-by? Daniel ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553/97 "2006-02-23T22:23:06Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > This [White House Fact Sheet](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060222-11.html) on the CFIUS process and the DP World transaction might interest you, me, and everyone else here. Needless to say, I’ve got a couple of concerns relating to this press release: 1. The use of words like ‘manage’, ‘in charge’, ‘sets the standards’. “[DPW] will not manage port security. The security of our ports will continue to be managed by the Coast Guard and Customs.” “The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Is Always In Charge Of The Nation’s Port Security, Not The Private Company That Operates Facilities Within The Ports. Nothing will change with this transaction. DHS, along with the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and other Federal agencies, sets the standards for port security and ensures that all port facility owners and operators comply with these standards.” “DP World will not manage port security”. A _manager_ doesn’t _do_; s/he supervises, delegates, etc. So what I’m reading here is that the Coast Guard, Customs, and DHS will tell DPW what to do and how to do it vis-a-vis port security, but DPW will actually carry out the port security operations. This is backed up by language in the Fact Sheet such as “DP World has signed a letter of assurances making commitments to meet and maintain security standards for the port terminals that they will own and operate in the United States.” It wouldn’t have to maintain such standards if it didn’t have a role to play in security. 1. The changing of the standard. As previously noted, the law says a 45-day investigation is mandatory in any instance where (a) “an entity controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government seeks to engage in any merger, acquisition, or takeover” which (b) “could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the United States that could affect the national security of the United States.” The fact sheet says “The review process allows any agency that sees a potential credible threat to the national security to raise those concerns.” Similarly, “Twelve Federal agencies and the government’s counterterrorism experts closely and carefully reviewed the transaction to make certain it posed no threat to national security.” To me, at least, the phrase “threat to national security” is much stronger, hence a more stringent test to meet, than the legal phrase “affect national security.” In a header, the White House goes even further: “The Administration, As Required By Law, Has Reviewed The Transaction To Make Certain That It Does Not In Any Way Jeopardize National Security.” 1. The continued lack of any specific locus of responsibility for review: “In reviewing a foreign transaction, CFIUS brings together 12 Federal agencies with diverse expertise to consider transactions from a variety of perspectives and identify and analyze all national security issues.” Did CFIUS as a committee spend a lot of time on this, or was it a 5-minute agenda item at their meeting? It’s impossible to say whether they conducted a substantive review as a group, although it would seem unlikely to this bureaucrat that they did. At any rate, two of the members of CFIUS who unanimously approved it, didn’t find out they had until afterwards. “During the initial 30-day review, each CFIUS member agency conducts its own internal analysis of the national security implications of the transaction under review.” Those agencies are mostly pretty big places. I’d feel better if one deputy assistant undersecretary stepped forward and said, “My shop vetted this deal.” The problem with ‘responsibility’ that’s spread over a large group is, nobody in particular has to stand up and take responsibility for anything. I’m not saying it’s happening, but finding a responsible person has the potential to be a serious three-card monte game, only with a hell of a lot more than three cards. Compared to these concerns, the White House’s conflation of investments in businesses with a connection to protecting our national security, and investments in the United States generally, is a mere irritant - just the usual day-to-day White House untruth. (“Preventing this transaction by a reputable company to go forward after careful review would send a terrible signal to friends and allies that investments in the United States from certain parts of the world are not welcome.”) If they want to buy the Target chain of stores, or the Holiday Inns, nobody’s going to care; hell, if Qaddafi wants to buy 'em, and has the money, I frankly don’t give a flip. But port security is a whole 'nother ballgame. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553/98 "2006-02-23T23:26:56Z")
> [@CNN](#): > > l]President Bush on Thursday defended his administration’s decision to allow a company from an Arab country to operate six major U.S. ports, saying, “People don’t need to worry about security.” Really??!! Woohoo! The war is over! Dismantle the DHS and revoke the Patriot Act! Yay! ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2006, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553/99 "2006-02-24T00:32:04Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > Really??!! Woohoo! The war is over! Dismantle the DHS and revoke the Patriot Act! Yay! I intend immediately to proced to 42nd and Broadway and kiss a girl for the magazine cover–We’ll be the next Nick and Jessica… ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2006, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553/100 "2006-02-24T00:34:16Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Because the Usual Suspects automatically, reflexively, unthinkingly attack anything and everything Bush does. > > Regards, > Shodan not always. sometimes its the things he \*\*doesn’t \*\*do, like informing himself (either via reading the business pages once in the week, in which ca.se the sale of P & O would have stuck in his tiny tiny brain) or paying attention to the government that he’s supposed to be running [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/control-of-u-s-ports/345553.md?page=6)