outsourcing of U.S. ports

i agree with pb on this one. we are not warring with all the arabs. to deny a compny the right to do business on this soil because some fanatics who are arab attacked s is unfair and a blatantly racist & paranoid decision.

 

That's about all people can do on this one. Accuse those of expressing a security concern of being racist and paranoid.

.

 

So how did this one person get this deal? And why was it put through quickly and quietly under the radar? Don't you think it's a little fishy that he was appointed to maritime operations and then a few weeks later his company is going to be controlling U.S. ports? I hardly call that free market. Where's the transparency and open competition in all of this?

People don't want to ask critical questions. Instead they play the dumb race card. Much like the talking heads on CNN, MSNBC, and FOX who never get to the issue but rather discuss tabloid events surrounding the issue and come to support the White House based on some ideological preference and spouts about supposed free market.

.

 

it is just Xenophobia. Not all Arab countries are bad.



Relax, terrorism isn't profitable.

 

You sure seem happy to make the accusation of others, so why can't it be made of you?

Playing the race card - perhaps this is an example:

All you had against the company was that it was Arab, and then you concluded that this was like giving control of our ports to Japan during WWII or like handing security over to Hamas or bin Laden. We are not at war with the Arabs, and Arabs doesn't mean Hamas or bin Laden.

 

I dont know about you but this new plan of the Bush adminsitration is genius! I mean what would help the American people more than a Dubai based company guarding our ports?


Brilliant!

Everything Bush does is for the well being of our country. you guys still dont see that? shucks!

 

You still don't want to discuss the real issue but rather talking points, much the same as the talking heads on the corporate networks.

Bill Frist says he will pass legislation to postpone the change until it can be discussed in the Congress. Bush has countered by saying he will veto the legislation.

Actually, a British firm was controlling operations at these ports. So if someone doesn't agree with that either, they will be accused of being racist and anti-British.

I don't feel easy about any foreign group controlling major port operations, especially if changes are made with minimal or no oversight (so now people can run over at the mouth with accusations about people being 'anti-foreign'). The very least that the White House could have done would have been to allow an open discussion on this and at least notify the states that a change was coming.

I suspect there is more going on behind this deal that is embarassing to the Bush administration. Otherwise they wouldn't be so adamant against a discussion on it. It's likely a return favor for UAE allowing the U.S. military to use its territory or something along those lines.

.

 

It seems that the "real issue" has changed now that you realise you can't support what you said. You said contracting management of a US port to an Arab company was like contracting it to a Japanese company during WWII. Now this has been deemed a "talking point" because you've come up with what you think is a better argument and want me to forget what you said earlier?

But nobody was protesting British management, so this is a theoretical scenario which better fits the idea of useless "talking points". And in a way you've contradicted yourself anyway, since you've only highlighted the fact that the port was already foreign managed, and the only change is that it is now an Arab company (which you have equated to Hamas or bin Laden running the port).

You also seem to naively believe that if Congress is so worked up about it, there must be some legitimate reason. Why? Because Congress can't pander to xenophobia and economic nationalism? Of course they can. Look at Unocal. Every port operator in the US is calling up their senator/congressmen right now to seize the opportunity to eliminate foreign competition.

 

They're not calling Congressmen to end foreign competition. They're raising concerns about security issues related to foreign groups controlling major ports. It's not that difficult to understand.

Sometimes hyperbole has to be used to get a point across. Learn to read between the lines a little.

In the old 'Airplane' movie, Sonny Bono bought his bomb right at the airport lobby. For those who have a sense of humor, it was a spoof on how lax security was at American airports.

I'm sure if we look hard enough we'll find some people that will claim that not allowing the lowest foreign bidder to sell bombs at the airport lobby is equivalent to trying to put an end to foreign competition in America.

.

 

It is my understanding that the UAE company being given this contract also managed ports in the mideast where shipments of embargoed nuclear components and equipment destined for Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and Libya originated. In other words, they have a track record of lax security at the least, and complicity in nuclear smuggling at worst.

This isn't a race issue, it is a simple issue of security. NO foreign company should be allowed to operate security installations in the US. Doesn't matter if the company is from the UAE or Canada. Simple common sense.

 

Maybe more difficult than you think. Security is an emotive issue, and incumbents don't want foreign competition. Its a natural fit. People will push "buy American" for a lot dumber reasons than that. (The issue was raised a year and a half ago by the Economist - http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=3160118).

Well no, actually I don't think you would find someone who would say that. Was that another "talking point"?

What is a security installation? A port? An airport? An airline? A transport company? A food processing plant? A pharmaceutic distributor? A bottled water supplier? The protectionists could come up with a pretty long list. And it seems to ignore completely the role of the Coast Guard, US Customs, and other agencies in port security. They will still be there. In fact US customs operates in many foreign ports, checking goods before they are shipped. Ports don't just make up their own security procedures.

Funny how the people that moan endlessly about paranoid Bush and his idiotic "Amber Alerts" sure seem pretty good at acting paranoid when there's economic protectionism at stake.

 

Yep.

If it accepts international flights, then yes.

No, No, No, No, and No.

For these purposes, I would define a security installation to be a border checkpoint or it's equivalent. That is, a facility where persons or cargo from outside the US arrive on US soil, and are subject to incoming screening for security purposes.

Funny how the right-wingers are always calling for more and more restrictions on what US citizens are allowed to do because of "homeland security" concerns, but those concerns go out the window when there are lucrative business deals at stake....

Ordinary citizens need to get their shoes sniffed at the airports, but we will outsource port security to a country with a record of obstructing investigations into terrorist financing?

 

So you're opposing those restrictions by calling for more resrictions yourself? Because I'm not calling for more restrictions on what US citizens are allowed to do. I'm also not calling for a fortress America where we close the US off to investment by Arab countries. And what exactly is the lucrative business deal - a Dubai company bought a UK company. So?

Why? Do airport operators run US customs?

Did we privatise and outsource US Customs and the Coast Guard? No.

 

The problem I see with this is Bush is trying to play both sides of the coin. He tells us these middle-eastern countries and it's citizens are potentially dangerous and these non-democratic countries are hotbeds for terrorism, that we need to restrict privacy rights in to improve our security against these threats. Then he wants to let them run our ports.

Now, I agree that we are not at war with all arabs, and that someone's nationality does not make that individual dangerous. What I don't agree with is the talking out two sides of the mouth. Do we need to give up rights to keep ourselves secure from middle-eastern terrorist threats, or is it safe to let them run our ports? Bush can't claim BOTH.

 

Well, right now Bushco is working for certain Arab countries.

When the Saudis say take out Iraq, Bush says yes sir.

When the UAE says they want to run our ports, Bush says yes sir.

 

Actually, I would ELIMINATE a lot of the restrictions on individuals, and put the effort where it could do the most good, like keeping a nuclear weapon from getting smuggled in by container ship. Seems a lot more important than keeping nailfiles and allen wrenches out of passenger's pockets.

Nope. But they are in many cases the eyes and ears of US customs. And in many cases airport personnel have "behind the scenes" access that would allow them to circumvent Customs or other federal security measures with relative ease.

 

I haven't referred to Bush as being paranoid. I've commented before on what I think is a pretty useless color-code system which gives out warnings in a non-specific unsubstantiated way. It's like issuing a tornado warning with no concrete details on where or when it will strike. I don't see any use for that other than a means to scare people. It reminds me of that religious character in Minnesota years ago who was scaring his congregation into submission by claiming a giant tornado was going to hit the town (in January).

.

 

True, but people today (and a few right here on this forum) are still thinking in the box, even after 911.

People at the INS and customs get payed off to do things. Look at that Malvo and the older one who was working with him (the beltway snipers). They were making money smuggling in people from central America. And this was after 911. You know he must have had a contact somewhere in the INS that he was paying off for cooperation.

The same thing happens with the BMV, which we've had no security reform on since 911. There were a couple of senators who fought for real reform, but the business establishment wants the cheap labor of illegal immigrants and put a stop to any real reforms a couple years ago.

.

 

Yeah, like the security crew busting the little old lady in line while Sonny Bono bought his bomb right in the airport lobby.

I've heard the U.S. is going to start allowing nail cutters and other small items on airplanes soon.

.

 

well, hell, apparently ol' bush didn't even know about the decision until he heard it in news reports. HAHA! wtf?