Control of U.S. Ports

[RTFirefly]

Wow. What a surprise.

@Rep. Peter King (R-NY)

The royal family had close relationships with Bin Laden, and my concern is are those same people still in the government today? Do they have any influence over the company? Where did they go? I mean, it’s not like choosing between the Mets and the Yankees when they, you know, supported al Qaeda against us, when they were with bin Laden. That’s why the C.I.A. couldn’t take out bin Laden because the UAE royal family was with him in Afghanistan. So, to me, it’s a very real issue. Do we want to have our ports managed by a company which could have a very significant al Qaeda presence, a pro-Taliban presence. Do we want them within our defense perimeter? And what bothered me about the whole thing, and I was asking questions at the beginning. I said I had concerns about it. And **when I met with people who are on this committee, I was told upfront - this is before they got their act together - that they did no investigating. There was no investigation done. **And then I’m watching “Meet the Press” a week ago Sunday, and Secretary Chertoff was on, and he was saying, ‘Well, if the American people knew what a rigorous investigation was conducted, they wouldn’t have any concerns.’ That’s when I realized they’re not telling us the true story here, and that’s why I’ve come out against the deal, and at least until there’s a form of investigation.

I’ve been pointing out for awhile that this crew has a tendency to not do their homework. That’s why I wasn’t willing to believe a bunch of smoke about how there was an investigation, unless and until someone could point to a particular, specific person who was in charge of such an investigation and was willing to take responsibility.

This principle is true across the board for the Bush administration; PortGate is just one specific application of it.

[RTFirefly]

@John Mace

When have Republicans said we couldn’t trust long standing US allies, and what the hell does this have to do with the GC or the UN?

You obviously missed Rummy’s “Old Europe” comments in the run-up to the Iraq War, the subsequent renaming of French fries as “Freedom Fries,” and other insults of and attempts of payback to longtime allies, notably France and Germany.

You’re fishing, here, RTF, and you just hooked a load of junk.

Nice of you to say so. Now explain why Digby’s comment is wrong.

[John_Mace]

@RTFirefly

You obviously missed Rummy’s “Old Europe” comments in the run-up to the Iraq War, the subsequent renaming of French fries as “Freedom Fries,” and other insults of and attempts of payback to longtime allies, notably France and Germany.

No I didn’t miss it when Rummy said it and I didn’t miss it when Powell said it either. But show me how that has anything to do with trust, especially in the context of fighting terrorism. Most of “Old Europe” didn’t follow us into Iraq, but we have always coopertated with them and they with us on breaking up terror cells around the world.

Nice of you to say so. Now explain why Digby’s comment is wrong.

Uhm, why don’t you tell us what’s right about it instead of just quoting it.

This whole thing is about how the US controls security at its ports. This has absolutely nothing to do with our respect or lack thereof for the GC or UN. The relationship that the US has forged with the UEA didn’t have anything to do with eithre of those institutions. You can tell us that stinky old tire you fished up is a nice shiny trout, but it’s still a stinky old tire.

[RTFirefly]

@John Mace

No I didn’t miss it when Rummy said it and I didn’t miss it when Powell said it either. But show me how that has anything to do with trust, especially in the context of fighting terrorism.

We didn’t trust them to help rebuild Iraq, which according to the Administration has everything to do with fighting terrorism. And this was in a context where a good deal of the original plants and equipent that needed rebuilding and repair had been built by “Old Europe” companies in the first place, and they were therefore best positioned in many cases to rebuild most quickly and cheaply.

Uhm, why don’t you tell us what’s right about it instead of just quoting it.

I noted for-instances of each of his references.

This whole thing is about how the US controls security at its ports.

Which is part and parcel of the larger War on Terror, to the extent that such a thing can be said to exist.

This has absolutely nothing to do with our respect or lack thereof for the GC or UN. The relationship that the US has forged with the UEA didn’t have anything to do with eithre of those institutions.

These are all part of the alleged War on Terror. We’ve done our best to trash the U.N., which could have helped us in a lot of situations if we’d been willing to work with it instead of going it alone. Our lack of respect for the standards of treating prisoners under the Geneva Conventions has been a potent propaganda tool for the enemy - and we can’t win a military war against al-Qaeda while losing the propaganda war. This one doesn’t work like that.

But in the same alleged War on Terror, we have previously put business ahead of domestic security, and if you think the chemical business is the only time, I’ve got a bridge or two I’d like to sell you. It may be the only time they’ve been clearly caught out in it, but that’s it.

You can tell us that stinky old tire you fished up is a nice shiny trout, but it’s still a stinky old tire.

Sez you.

[John_Mace]

@RTFirefly

We didn’t trust them to help rebuild Iraq, which according to the Administration has everything to do with fighting terrorism. And this was in a context where a good deal of the original plants and equipent that needed rebuilding and repair had been built by “Old Europe” companies in the first place, and they were therefore best positioned in many cases to rebuild most quickly and cheaply.

Can I get a cite that we “didn’t trust” them? We didn’t want to reward money-making contracts to countries that didn’t help us with the dirty work of actually fighting the war. Cite. That had nothing to do with trust, and everything to do with sticking it to them for not being with us.

I noted for-instances of each of his references.

But you haven’t explained what this has to do with the ports deal. What does reluctance to work with the UN have to do with our willingness to do business deals with the UAE. It’s a complete non sequitur. You might as well have said we should scrap the ports deal because you got sick once in a foreign country, therefore dealings with foreign countries is bad.

But in the same alleged War on Terror, we have previously put business ahead of domestic security, and if you think the chemical business is the only time, I’ve got a bridge or two I’d like to sell you. It may be the only time they’ve been clearly caught out in it, but that’s it.

Again, even if you’re correct in that this was an instance of putting business ahead of security, how does that prove that they are doing the same thing now?

Sez you.

Yep, sez moi.

[rjung]

@John Mace

Can I get a cite that we “didn’t trust” them?

I vaguely recall an international debate that went along the lines of:

Bush Administration: “We believe Saddam has WMD stockpiles and we have to take him out now!”
European allies: “Really? That doesn’t jive with what we believe.”
Bush Administration: “Well, you’re wrong! We’ve got scads of secret evidence that prove he has WMDs!”
European allies: “Interesting. Can we see this evidence?”
Bush Administration: “No way, it’s too sensitive!”
European allies: “What? But we’re allies!”
Bush Administration: “Sorry, no can do. Now are you gonna join our coalition or not?”
European allies: “Bugger this for a game of conkers.”

[John_Mace]

Actually, I think Bush’s position on the DPW deal can more accurately be portrayed as going with the international community rather than against it. There are quite a few other countries affected by this deal, and I can’t find any evidence that those countries are opposed to it. In fact, I’ve started 2 threads on the subject and come up empty handed.

Germany, Britain, France, Belgium, Australia, South Korea will all be similarly affected by this deal. By rejecting the DPW deal, wouldn’t we be going against the concensus of that international community?

[RTFirefly]

@John Mace

Can I get a cite that we “didn’t trust” them? We didn’t want to reward money-making contracts to countries that didn’t help us with the dirty work of actually fighting the war. Cite. That had nothing to do with trust, and everything to do with sticking it to them for not being with us.

IME, people you stick it to, stop trusting you. YMMV, I suppose.

But you haven’t explained what this has to do with the ports deal.

I have; you’re not listening.

What does reluctance to work with the UN have to do with our willingness to do business deals with the UAE. It’s a complete non sequitur. You might as well have said we should scrap the ports deal because you got sick once in a foreign country, therefore dealings with foreign countries is bad.

You seem to refuse to accept the notion of national security and the GWoT as a unifying theme.

Again, even if you’re correct in that this was an instance of putting business ahead of security, how does that prove that they are doing the same thing now?

It doesn’t prove anything. But it sure is consistent with Bush as we know him.

Bush has done exactly two visible things about al-Qaeda and terror. (Not counting ineffective and probably politically timed shit like color-coded terror alerts.) He deposed the Taliban, and he continues to hassle us when we fly. He’s failed to do a number of things that just plain obviously needed doing after 9/11, like port security, protecting chemical and nuclear plants, screening air cargo, and doing something about routing chemical shipments away from population centers. We know he failed to do one of those because the industry in question didn’t take kindly to interference. It wouldn’t surprise anyone with a brain if the others weren’t done for the same reason. And completely aside from national security issues, he’s done the business community as many favors as he could get away with.

So should it surprise anyone if he put business ahead of national security? Only if they’ve been living in a cave other than bin Laden’s these past five years, or if for them, ‘denial’ is not a river in Egypt.

[RTFirefly]

Ledeen may not be part of the Bush Administration, but he’s pretty influential. And this is what he was saying about “Old Europe”, a week and a half before we invaded Iraq:

They dreaded the establishment of an American empire, and they sought for a way to bring it down.

If you were the French president or the German chancellor, you might well have done the same.

How could it be done? No military operation could possibly defeat the United States, and no direct economic challenge could hope to succeed. That left politics and culture. And here there was a chance to turn America’s vaunted openness at home and toleration abroad against the United States. So the French and the Germans struck a deal with radical Islam and with radical Arabs: You go after the United States, and we’ll do everything we can to protect you, and we will do everything we can to weaken the Americans.

The Franco-German strategy was based on using Arab and Islamic extremism and terrorism as the weapon of choice, and the United Nations as the straitjacket for blocking a decisive response from the United States.

[RTFirefly]

I forgot the kicker:

it is an open secret that they have been supplying Saddam with military technology through the corrupt ports of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid’s little playground in Dubai, often through Iranian middlemen.

[EEMan]

I would like to say (to start) there have been quite a few of the ‘me no like Bush’ types that seem to have given this topic some honest to god thought… and have really gotten some bonus points (in my mind)…

And I have nothing extra to add… seems all the discussions have led to the same place… this is a non-issue…

Simply a change of ownership of a company that ALREADY runs the ports… it is ALREADY a foreign power… and frankly since the new system is a government controlled company; they are LESS likely to do anything snarky… as that government becomes the next target… as opposed to being able to shift blame to a privately held company…

The workers at the port wont change… heck the union contracts are will still be in force…

[RTFirefly]

I’ve avoided taking a position on the deal itself so far; earlier on, I was simply agitating for a full review of the security implications of this deal, or at least evidence that such a review had been made. It apparently hasn’t, so I feel comfortable in coming to a conclusion on the basis of my own reservations.

I’m against it. (And I’ve been saying ever since I first commenced it…:))

My best estimation of the UAE with respect to the GWoT over the past few years is that their record is mixed, but improving. (No, I don’t buy into Ledeen’s rants; I posted them as evidence of the state of the neocon mindset ca. 2003.) That beats a kick in the head, but I don’t think it’s a good enough record, of long enough standing (less than 5 years!), for them to be put in charge of a major security asset.

If they want to invest in the United States, that’s fine by me. Let 'em buy anything from Six Flags to Microsoft. But not (for example) Lockheed Martin, and not the company that operates our major ports.

[EEMan]

@RTFirefly

I’ve avoided taking a position on the deal itself so far; earlier on, I was simply agitating for a full review of the security implications of this deal, or at least evidence that such a review had been made. It apparently hasn’t, so I feel comfortable in coming to a conclusion on the basis of my own reservations.

I’m against it. (And I’ve been saying ever since I first commenced it…:))

My best estimation of the UAE with respect to the GWoT over the past few years is that their record is mixed, but improving. (No, I don’t buy into Ledeen’s rants; I posted them as evidence of the state of the neocon mindset ca. 2003.) That beats a kick in the head, but I don’t think it’s a good enough record, of long enough standing (less than 5 years!), for them to be put in charge of a major security asset.

If they want to invest in the United States, that’s fine by me. Let 'em buy anything from Six Flags to Microsoft. But not (for example) Lockheed Martin, and not the company that operates our major ports.

Their portion of the ‘major secruity asset’ is the same as the rent-a-cops; has always been… they are incharge of the security of the cargo from the time it comes OFF the ships, until it leaves their yard… PRIOR to it coming off the ships it is under the control of the Coast Guard and Customs (as it has always been)… and once cleared of those two it is ILLEGAL for the port to open any cargo without permission from the people who own said cargo…

Basically they are there to make sure it isn’t stolen… PERIOD… there is no more security aspect than that… OH and the same companies that have been providing security already (US secruity firms such as Pinkertons) will STILL be providing the ‘do not steal’ secruity…

They would have MUCH MORE damaging information buying Microsoft (as Microsoft is allowed to develop crypto protocols)… or owning Six Flags (as they would be in control of LOTS of civilians, and in charge of mantainence and admittance)…

[RTFirefly]

@EEMan

Their portion of the ‘major secruity asset’ is the same as the rent-a-cops; has always been… they are incharge of the security of the cargo from the time it comes OFF the ships, until it leaves their yard… PRIOR to it coming off the ships it is under the control of the Coast Guard and Customs (as it has always been)… and once cleared of those two it is ILLEGAL for the port to open any cargo without permission from the people who own said cargo…

Basically they are there to make sure it isn’t stolen… PERIOD… there is no more security aspect than that… OH and the same companies that have been providing security already (US secruity firms such as Pinkertons) will STILL be providing the ‘do not steal’ secruity…

I believe this has already been discussed a bit upthread. The port operator oversees nonintrusive inspections. (The Coast Guard and Customs conduct the thorough inspections that apply to 4-5% of incoming containers.) And if $6.50/hour Pinkertons are your idea of security - I’ve been one. Let’s be real.

They would have MUCH MORE damaging information buying Microsoft (as Microsoft is allowed to develop crypto protocols)…

Knowing admittedly only the little bit of that field that one learns in algebraic group theory, my suspicion is that that’s nothing to worry about, unless you keep sensitive info on your home PC, which one shouldn’t.

or owning Six Flags (as they would be in control of LOTS of civilians, and in charge of mantainence and admittance)…

Getting access to lots of civilians is hardly a challenge for a terrorist operating in this country. There are plenty of locations and occasions where lots of people are together in a fairly small and unsecured or lightly secured space; they wouldn’t have to own an amusement park for that.

The hard parts, for them, are (a) getting hold of the means to inflict harm on a whole bunch of people, and particularly (b) getting those means into the country. Based on the reading I’ve done in the past couple of weeks (and cited upthread), ISTM that a port operator with a desire to do so can see that a particular container bypasses the inspections it’s in charge of - which for 95% of all containers, is the only inspection it’ll get.

[EEMan]

@RTFirefly

I believe this has already been discussed a bit upthread. The port operator oversees nonintrusive inspections. (The Coast Guard and Customs conduct the thorough inspections that apply to 4-5% of incoming containers.) And if $6.50/hour Pinkertons are your idea of security - I’ve been one. Let’s be real.

What i’m saying is that is ALREADY who is doing the work… and who will continue to do it…

Knowing admittedly only the little bit of that field that one learns in algebraic group theory, my suspicion is that that’s nothing to worry about, unless you keep sensitive info on your home PC, which one shouldn’t.

Those same protocols are used by any number of companies and government agencies for control of sensitive information… that is why it is illegal to ‘export’ that techologoy…

Getting access to lots of civilians is hardly a challenge for a terrorist operating in this country. There are plenty of locations and occasions where lots of people are together in a fairly small and unsecured or lightly secured space; they wouldn’t have to own an amusement park for that.

Nope you sure wouldn’t… you can find that at any number of buildings (also owned by foreign nations), or things of the sort…

The hard parts, for them, are (a) getting hold of the means to inflict harm on a whole bunch of people, and particularly

One of the 3 most deadly terrorist attacks in the US in the past 100 years was done with fuel and fertilizer… both already here… and made use of by a few US citizens…

(b) getting those means into the country.

It would be easier to drive it across the border with canada… as most of it is unpatrolled and open… as opposed to shipping which IS randomly searched…

Based on the reading I’ve done in the past couple of weeks (and cited upthread), ISTM that a port operator with a desire to do so can see that a particular container bypasses the inspections it’s in charge of - which for 95% of all containers, is the only inspection it’ll get.

Or you could send 2 containers and have a 99% chance of never being looked at… BUT they can NOT reroute the real secruity of incoming cargo… which is NOT handled by the port operator…

Since it is illegal for the port operator to open a cargo container… all they can do is look at the outside or said container or call the local police/FBI/customs… it is VERY expensive way to do something that they could do already…

[RTFirefly]

@EEMan

Or you could send 2 containers and have a 99% chance of never being looked at… BUT they can NOT reroute the real secruity of incoming cargo… which is NOT handled by the port operator…

Since it is illegal for the port operator to open a cargo container… all they can do is look at the outside or said container or call the local police/FBI/customs… it is VERY expensive way to do something that they could do already…

We’ve talked about all this upthread. I’m not gonna do this twice.

[EEMan]

@RTFirefly

We’ve talked about all this upthread. I’m not gonna do this twice.

Which is why i’m very confused as to why you came to the conclusions you did…

[Measure_for_Measure]

Pst Eman:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7138057&postcount=124
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7138682&postcount=133
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7139524&postcount=138
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7146826&postcount=149

The points you would have to address are contained therein.

[RTFirefly]

I don’t think this got posted earlier.

Joseph King, who headed the customs agency’s anti-terrorism efforts under the Treasury Department and the new Department of Homeland Security, said national security fears are well grounded.

He said a company the size of Dubai Ports World would be able to get hundreds of visas to relocate managers and other employees to the United States. Using appeals to Muslim solidarity or threats of violence, al-Qaeda operatives could force low-level managers to provide some of those visas to al-Qaeda sympathizers, said King, who for years tracked similar efforts by organized crime to infiltrate ports in New York and New Jersey. Those sympathizers could obtain legitimate driver’s licenses, work permits and mortgages that could then be used by terrorist operatives.

Dubai Ports World could also offer a simple conduit for wire transfers to terrorist operatives in the Middle East. Large wire transfers from individuals would quickly attract federal scrutiny, but such transfers, buried in the dozens of wire transfers a day from Dubai Ports World’s operations in the United States to the Middle East would go undetected, King said.

[EEMan]

@RTFirefly

I don’t think this got posted earlier.

So… it IS simply because it is a ‘mideastern/muslim’ country…