Has our Homeland Security been seriously compromised ?

Petre

New member
I'm sure many of you have read about the sale of our port operations in 6 major US cities to the Arab owned United Arab Emirates.

Their past operations have been questionable at best and now for $6.8 billion we give them control of ports in the United States ?!?

I think this is a VERY bad idea. If ever we wanted to give opportunity to the enemy to get a nuclear device into this country ... I'd say this is it. :mad:

What concerns me most is this deal seem to have been slipped right under the nose of our Lawmakers who are now scrambling to get this decision overturned and being told they ran out of time :confused:

If you haven't read about this ... here's the story.
-------
White House Defends Port Sale to Arab Co.

Feb 16 3:48 PM US/Eastern

By TED BRIDIS and DEVLIN BARRETT
Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON
The Bush administration on Thursday rebuffed criticism about potential security risks of a $6.8 billion sale that gives a company in the United Arab Emirates control over significant operations at six major American ports.

Lawmakers asked the White House to reconsider its earlier approval of the deal.

The sale to state-owned Dubai Ports World was "rigorously reviewed" by a U.S. committee that considers security threats when foreign companies seek to buy or invest in American industry, National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said.

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, run by the Treasury Department, reviewed an assessment from U.S. intelligence agencies. The committee's 12 members agreed unanimously the sale did not present any problems, the department said.

"We wanted to look at this one quite closely because it relates to ports," Stewart Baker, an assistant secretary in the Homeland Security Department, told The Associated Press. "It is important to focus on this partner as opposed to just what part of the world they come from. We came to the conclusion that the transaction should not be halted."

The unusual defense of the secretive committee, which reviews hundreds of such deals each year, came in response to criticism about the purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

The world's fourth-largest ports company runs commercial operations at shipping terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

Four senators and three House members asked the administration Thursday to reconsider its approval. The lawmakers contended the UAE is not consistent in its support of U.S. terrorism-fighting efforts.

"The potential threat to our country is not imagined, it is real," Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., said in a House speech.

The Homeland Security Department said it was legally impossible under the committee's rules to reconsider its approval without evidence DP World gave false information or withheld vital details from U.S. officials. The 30-day window for the committee to voice objections has ended.

DP World said it had received all regulatory approvals.

"We intend to maintain and, where appropriate, enhance current security arrangements," the company said in a statement. "It is very much business as usual for the P&O terminals" in the United States.

In Dubai, the UAE's foreign minister described his country as an important U.S. ally but declined to respond directly to the concerns expressed in Washington.

"We have worked very closely with the United States on a number of issues relating to the combat of terrorism, prior to and post Sept. 11," Sheik Abdullah Bin Zayed al-Nahyan told The Associated Press.

U.S. lawmakers said the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan. They also said the UAE was one of only three countries to recognize the now-toppled Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government.

The State Department describes the UAE as a vital partner in the fight against terrorism. Dubai's own ports have participated since last year in U.S. efforts to detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials.

Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y., urged congressional hearings on the deal.

"At a time when America is leading the world in the war on terrorism and spending billions of dollars to secure our homeland, we cannot cede control of strategic assets to foreign nations with spotty records on terrorism," Fossella said.

Critics also have cited the UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"Outsourcing the operations of our largest ports to a country with a dubious record on terrorism is a homeland security and commerce accident waiting to happen," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. "The administration needs to take another look at this deal."

Separately, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said Thursday it will conduct its own review of the deal and urged the government to defend its decision.

In a letter to the Treasury Department, Port Authority chairman Anthony Coscia said the independent review by his agency was necessary "to protect its interests."

The lawmakers pressing the White House to reconsider included Sens. Schumer, Tom Coburn, R-Okla., Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Reps. Foley, Fossella and Chris Shays, R-Conn.
 
Doesn't really concern me. Money rules--that said while Saudi Arabia may turn a blind eye to someone from their country doing some sort of attack, it certainly won't come via this company:
1.They won't risk losing 6.8 billion by "allowing" this to happen via their company
2. It would then be a direct link towards their country
Believe me, as I said they may not look down on an attack of some sort but in their eyes there is plenty more options then directly linking them and losing such a huge amount of money. Another words, in this instance, it's in their best interest (money wise) not to have an attack happen via their company.
 
By the end of March we'll have spent $250,000,000,000+ in Iraq.

Is $6,800,000,000. Really that much ? Do we even know who's funding this venture ? Who's backing this company ?

I'm not saying anything will happen tomorrow , but maybe in a few years , we get complacent . Security becomes lax ... who knows.

They say it's already difficult enough to control what comes over on the ships and impossible to check everything . And now this?

I don't know.

Obviously it's not so cut and dried as our Lawmakers are trying to get this overturned calling it a REAL , not imagined security risk. :confused:

Here's a quote on this subject
The lawmakers voiced concern that the UAE served as a conduit for parts used for nuclear proliferation and that the local banking system had been abused by terrorist financiers.

U.S. officials have said money for the September 11 attacks was wired through the United Arab Emirates' banking system. Two of the September 11 hijackers were UAE citizens.

"Six of our largest commercial ports are being handed over to a country that is seeking to be Iran's free-trade partner and has been linked to the funding and planning of 9/11," said Rep. Mark Foley, a Florida Republican.

Foley and Schumer were among seven lawmakers who wrote to Snow expressing concern that the Bush administration was not giving the case appropriate attention and urging him to make the Committee on Foreign Investments undertake a full 45-day investigation.

"Our ports are our most vulnerable targets for terrorist attack," the letter said.

US lawmakers urge review of Dubai Ports deal
 
Wait a sec, did we already forget where most of the 9/11 hyjackers came from?? Soudi what? (Or am I wrong. If I am, by all means...) I belive that our homeland security is and has been seriouly comprimised for some time. You want proof? In a word. Katrina.
At best, everything's fine. Everyone is in control and those in control have good hearts and have the common good in their mind when they make their world changing decisions. Remember, Dick Cheney loves this country.

At worst, we're bordering the apocolypse. Our leaders are seemingly flirting with disaster and have led us from bad to worse to omg, to currently stockpiling for the end. The thought of making a half dozen of our largest ports succeptable to those terrorists appalls me. Bush should be tried for treason along with anyone in washington.

Now, I'm not one for stereotyping or even busting out the terrible 't' word (terrorist) but this is wrong. No matter how you dice it, I refuse to believe there is any good reason to do this, save for those lining SOMEONE'S pockets...(may they get what's coming. Karma's a B*TCH, and that's a fact.) They sell us the oil then prob get to tax it at port...
 
Bad decision, anyone the oil business, world wide, has ties to Saudi Arabia.:) But you know what. I was surprised back in the 80s' to see Russian ships at harbor in Duluth Mn.:eek: At the time I thought that there they are in the true heartland of north america. How can you know that they are not carrying a WMD? :confused:
The terrorist may have came from SA but myfriends they had been here on our soil for a while as the next batch probaly presenty are.:eek:
 
The difference with the Russian IMO is two fold ... not only are they not religious fanatics that riot and kill over cartoons , but they were as fearful of starting a war as we were . That's why we had a cold war. Mutual assured destruction was feared as the result of a real war between us.

There is a strong and growing belief that certain members of the muslim and arab nations and those that follow their lead , WANT to start a nuclear war. The Presiident of Iran has as much as stated so publicly.
 
That's troubling too Wingman ... Were there no US companies interested in this . I'd find that hard to believe. :confused:
 
Bush and Co strike again...lol

Not to mention the fact that Homeland Security has to be effective and not incompetent before it can be comprimised.
 
We also have to remember that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are two completely seperate countries. I don't think any of the attacks on the US has involved citizens from the UAE and its considered an ally.

Still not that good idea to outsource your own harbour defense though.
 
sell them the whole thing

Based on the performance to date I think we should outsource the entire Homeland Security Dept. to the highest bidder - all nations welcome.
 
The selling of America, and it continues.
Yep!
Everything must go!
We lost our lease!
Moonlight madness!
All technology, all skilled labor, all products must go!
Don't miss this once in a lifetime clearence event!
America....half off!
What a tragedy!
...and if that weren't enough a medical savings plan patterned after Wendy's!
Incompetence and ineffectiveness starts at the top.
 
Bush and Co strike again...lol

Not to mention the fact that Homeland Security has to be effective and not incompetent before it can be comprimised.

This is very true. I just wonder why they're so adamant to make this deal go through.

Bush is all at once claiming he didn't know about it until after it was approved - http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060222/D8FU9QQO0.html

But also that he'll veto legislation to try and block the deal - http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/21/D8FTNQ400.html

Why would he threaten to Veto something he admits he knew little about before thoroughly finding out what was going on ? :confused:
 
Hello---anybody in there? You do realize that this contract changes nothing about our port security--right? The port authority and coast guard are STILL RESPONSIBLE for our port security regardless of the company! Wake up people and know the facts before posting something you don't know.
You also realize that the Arab world hates UEA for allowing us to dock OUR NAVY ships in their ports in Dubai! So our Navy vessels are OK, but not our ports--that we still are responsible for security?
For the last time----the nuclear device would have to be stopped from its point of origin---once it's here its too late---no matter who is in charge. Are we also in danger of being attacked in our malls, schools etc...better not let somebody from UEA own that company either. This from the party that proclaims hatred for racial profiling:rolleyes:
There is not 1 person here who has given ANY viable reason for not having this company have the contract. There is no American company that could have gotten the contract, it has NOTHING to do with our port security.
Close your eyes people--this was the most qualified company to get the contract. Now with your eyes shut, you don't know who owns this company but they are most qualified. So your ONLY grpies are Bush OK'ed it and the company(not people) are owned by the UEA---seems pretty racist reasoning to me!:barf:
 
Remember Clinton/China/Military Bases?

Remember what country controls both ends of the Panama Canal?

This is nothing new.....
 
petre said:
Why would he threaten to Veto something he admits he knew little about before thoroughly finding out what was going on ?

Isn't the answer obvious? W is nothing more than a puppet. The only Q is who has their hand up his butt to the elbow.

Also, Rumsfeld claims to have just learned of this, and he is on the committee that approved it unanimously!

Sumpn aint right here folks.
 
I've got it! Bush was PLANTED in the Republican party by the Democrats, in order to make the Republicans lose face! ... *End sarcasm.*

I used to like Bush, but these days, I wonder if he won't just be the end of the US as we know it... It's pretty obvious that he's lost his mind with regards to how to protect the US...

Wolfe... (Not to say that a Democrat/other party could do any better, but could they do worse?)
 
It's pretty obvious that he's lost his mind with regards to how to protect the US...



Please, please tell us how this company getting the contract gives us less security. Since the Port authority and Coast Guard are still in charge of security at ALL our ports---please explain?:confused:
 
Back
Top