US Port Security under foreign control?

[Turtle]

____This story is growing into quite a controversy with Governors & members of Congress lineing up against Pres. Bush.
___On the face of it, it seems ludicrous to me that we would hand over control of New York, Boston, etc. ports to any foreign company, let alone one known to fund terrorism. What do you think? If you're not from the US, would you welcome such foreign control in your home ports?

[GAHD]

just so people have an idea...google tells me:

National security interests require that measures be taken for the protection of vessels, harbors, ports and waterfront facilities of the United States from threats of espionage, foreign electronic intelligence collection, sabotage, intelligence collection operations directed against sensitive U.S. defense facilities from foreign vessels, and related subversive activities including the introduction into the United States of persons or materials in the pursuance of such activities.

-NATIONAL SECURITY DECISION; DIRECTIVE NUMBER 200; December 4, 1965;
U.S. PORT SECURITY PROGRAM

The Bush administration considers the UAE an important ally in the fight against terrorism since the suicide hijackings and is not objecting to Dubai Ports World's purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

-Feb. 11, 2006, 10:29AM; Arab firm to oversee 6 U.S. port

It shure is interesting, i tell ya that. Is the pres carving up the pie before he's out of the oven?

[sanctus]

At least Bush is coherent he beliefs in economy dictatibg life and the arab company seems to be the best paying.

Anyway, we have no ports so I can't really judge, but I don't really see a problem with giving the ports to foreign company. The terrorism thingy doesn't hold, firstly because for the 9.11 they had no ports and secondly (and more important) it's not like every arab company has terrorists inside.

I actually think it might be a good thing to give these ports to the arab company, it might help to restore a bit of confidence and diminish the tension.

[sanctus]

SOrry Turtle, I didn't read well, what do you mean by "known to fund terrorism"?How can that be proven?

Still, I hold to my conclusion above.

[Eclogite]

Originally Posted by Turtle

On the face of it, it seems ludicrous to me that we would hand over control of New York, Boston, etc. ports to any foreign company

You are not handing over control, you are handing over operational responsibility, which is quite a different matter.
Or, how about this, in contrast: it seems ludicrous to me that we would hand over control of major military bases on our soil to any foreign government. May I take it that you will now write to your congressman demanding the US remove its bases from UK soil and from the lands of over one hundred other countries? You see the point.

Originally Posted by Turtle

.........to any foreign company, let alone one known to fund terrorism?

Where is your evidence that this company funds terrorism? Where is your evidence that the UAE funds terrorism. I not saying they don't, I'm asking for the evidence.
I mean I already have the evidence of US funded terrorism - the IRA being a classic example, but I didn't rush out and burn my daughter's American passport as a consequence. Again, I hope you see my point.

[Turtle]

___Good points all; yes I see them.
___As to the UAE funding terrosism, what the report said is that the 9/11 terrosists funded their operation through UAE banks; I haven't found the original source yet, but it may have come from the 9/11 Commission.
___While it is true the Coast Guard & Homeland Security etc. have charge of security at all ports in the US (sorry for the mis-stated title), giving over the operational control is as we said in the old days, "like getting a fox to care for the henhouse".
___This is alarming a lot of Americans & someone told me that I have a government "of the people and by the people". This peep(le) wants his government to give this a long slow look. I haven't watched any news yet today, but last night it was shaping up as quite a bruhaha.
___Sanctus, I believe the air-port in Geneva is technically & legally a 'port'.

[TheBigDog]

There will be absolutly no operational changes as a result of this. One company bought another. They will use the existing employees in the existing jobs to continue operations, but channel the profits from said operation to UAE instead of GB. This is for the most part much ado about nothing. I would prefer that a US based firm were managing the operation, but only so that the profit would stay in the US. If I am the UAE, I would be looking for revenue streams like this so I am not living and dying by the price of oil, and its availability under my soil.

Bill

[Boerseun]

So what's the story about stressing about the US giving control of these ports to a foreign entity?

These harbours have been run by British companies for years, now. NOT US companies. So, telling Arab countries they can't run it, but we're more than happy if British companies run it, does not only reek of hypocracy, it is hypocracy in the worst possible way.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

There will be absolutly no operational changes as a result of this. One company bought another. They will use the existing employees in the existing jobs to continue operations, but channel the profits from said operation to UAE instead of GB. This is for the most part much ado about nothing. I would prefer that a US based firm were managing the operation, but only so that the profit would stay in the US. If I am the UAE, I would be looking for revenue streams like this so I am not living and dying by the price of oil, and its availability under my soil.

Bill

___Profits isn't the only thing they'll channel. Won't they now have access to all the manifests, schedules, destinations, security procedures, transportaion routes, & no end of previously unavailable information etc. etc.? Yes GB ran it before, but they have a long record as a staunch ally (not that they don't spy on us as well MI6). So we just accept that because UAE says "we'll be good" we allow it? I note this caused a stir in GB too, but they went ahead anyway.
___Sure, I'm just a symptomatically paranoid american turtle, but is all of Congress?

[TheBigDog]

Originally Posted by Turtle

___Profits isn't the only thing they'll channel. Won't they now have access to all the manifests, schedules, destinations, security procedures, transportaion routes, & no end of previously unavailable information etc. etc.? Yes GB ran it before, but they have a long record as a staunch ally (not that they don't spy on us as well MI6). So we just accept that because UAE says "we'll be good" we allow it? I note this caused a stir in GB too, but they went ahead anyway.
___Sure, I'm just a symptomatically paranoid american turtle, but is all of Congress?

Excellent point on the info Turtle. I am not sure how that is controlled. I can only guess that thanks to Sarbains/Oxley they will have a properly documented process fo finding anything they need.

Bill