This is a beauty.

Cant wait to see what Bushie does about this.

From today's New York Post:

February 12, 2006 --

The city's ports, considered a major target of terrorists, are about to be taken over by a firm based in the United Arab Emirates, a country with financial links to the Sept. 11 hijackers.

Dubai Ports World is set to complete a $6.8 billion deal to purchase Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., a London company that already runs commercial port operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans and Miami.

If shareholders approve the deal tomorrow, it will give control of various dock operations at some of the country's busiest points of entry to UAE-headquartered DP World.

The FBI has said most of the money for the 2001 terror attacks was funneled to hijackers through UAE banks, and much of the planning took place in the small but rich nation east of Saudi Arabia.

Steven Coleman, a spokesman for the Port Authority, said the deal is still under review but noted it only involved the management of one port terminal in New Jersey.

Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer urged the Bush administration to reconsider the sale.

"We should be very careful before we outsource such sensitive homeland security duties," Schumer said.

Despite these concerns, the move has been given the stamp of approval by the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, an arm of the Treasury Department.

The CFI "thoroughly reviewed the potential transaction and concluded they had no objection," said a DP World official.

The committee earlier agreed to consider concerns about the deal expressed by Miami-based Eller & Co., according to Eller's lawyer, Michael Kreitzer. Eller is a business partner with the British shipping giant.

"When you have a foreign government involved, you are injecting foreign national interests," Kreitzer said. "A country that may be a friend of ours today may not be on the same side tomorrow."

With Post Wire Services
hasani.gittens@nypost.com

This is the first I've heard of this. I don't get it. Why would we do this???? It doesnt' make sense. Someone tell me why this is a smart move? Does it come down to money?????

TIS

Well, from what I gather from the article, it's not something that we're actually doing.

As I understand it, an English company is presently running these ports, and the company is about to be sold to an Arab comapny.

So while the English company will still be running things, they will be owned by an Arab company.

What I find particularly disturbing is that our Treasury Department has given this deal their "stamp of approval."

I'm sure that the situation is considerably more intricate and complicated than this simple little article makes it out to be, but still, on the surface it doesn't sound like a smart thing to allow.

(And, no folks, don't worry. This is not a Neal Pulcawer story. Although it could be....)

I'd be curious to know if the CFI does its own investigations for Terrorism. What I'm saying is that the same way the President, Congress and Courts have checks and balances, does this committee. Can they dismiss a deal because it can lead to terrorism or must they vote on based simply on the economic factors at stake.

My guess - and this is strictly that, a guess - is that there must be other factors at play besides the economic ones.

I mean, suppose the Saudi Arabian bin Laden family construction company was about to buy-out some big U.S. construction company?

Even if the family and the deal were squeaky clean, I have to think that Bush would get the word to the CFI that the deal shouldn't be approved, based alone on the public relations disaster it would cause.

But wouldn't that lead to a "scandal" because the CFI would then over step it's bounds? And people would be screaming for Bush's head because he interfered in how the law said things should be done (say for instance the CFI approves the economic part of it and the FBI or CIA approves the terrorist threat part of it).

I think you and I both know that "securing America's interest" reason for Bush doing that would be thrown out the window in hopes of getting him impeached or smearing his name even more.

Hell, no one seemsed to mind when the Chinese wanted to buy our oil companies last year. And no one has a problem with other countries owning our Banks or other Financial Institutions. Years ago other countries bought major real estate holdings in this country when the dollar was weak.

Just because the company is owned by them doesn't mean the workers aren't going to be Americans and or watched over by Americans. Are you saying that just because they are Arabs that they are Terrorists?

In this particular case, I would think not, although in other cases you could very well be right.

No one in their right mind would criticize anyone in government for coming out against a deal with the bin Laden company.

As I said, approval of a deal like that would be a public relations disaster because everyone would be against it.

I think that's the type of reaction that we're likely to see in the case described in the article, also.

Clearly, the Dems will be against it if for no other reason than to be critical of Bush. And if he squashes the deal, i can't see anyone criticizing him for doing what they think he should do in the first place.

You're a Republican. Isn't your reaction to be against the deal also? Do you think that people like Don Smitty or Double-J or Don Cardi will be in favor of it?

Plaw, my point was not about Bush squashing the deal (if it had to be put on his desk to be signed and he didn't sign it then that's fine). My point was about you saying Bush going to the CFI and telling THEM not to approve it. Then I think even with the Dems being against the deal they would still use it against Bush to try to get him impeached or another smear campaign because he interfered with the process.

Of course I'm against the deal (I won't speak for others though) but I look at this as say we catch Bin Laden. Bush says screw the trial and all that shoot him in the head. I would say a good percentage of the U.S. would like to see that guy dead but you know if Bush didn't go through the courts he would be smeared for it.


edit: to try and clarify I think what the deal was about would be lost in favor of the process Bush took to make sure the deal was not approved (does that make sense )

I'm not saying that just because they are Arabs they are terrorists.

But let's face reality here:

People have a substantially different perception of the role of, say, the Chinese or Japanese with respect to their relationship with the United States than they do with the Arab countries.

Personally, I am not wild about any foreign power having interests that they own in the U.S., but I also confess to not being familiar enough with international economics to fully grasp the issues and questions involved.

But I do know that on a gut level I think that there's a much greater possibility that the day may come when the entire Arab world is our enemy than there is that we will be enemies someday with China or Japan.

Obviously, as someone in the article says, "When you have a foreign government involved, you are injecting foreign national interests. A country that may be a friend of ours today may not be on the same side tomorrow."

This is absolutely not about the workers or their supervisors in these companies being Americans.

Clearly, the UAE company isn't going to import 5,000 Saudi Arabians or something to start running the port if the deal goes through.

They probably couldn't even if they wanted to, because of our immigration laws.

This just doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Does it sound like a good one to you?

Look around you. Which country do you live in? I think it does come down to money!

Well, DM, if the process includes final approval by the president, there's no problem.

And if he's permitted to exert his influence, then that's no problem either.

But I still say that even if he overstepped his bounds in this particular case, while there might be some objection from the far, far left, and maybe some grumbling, there would no where near the type of reaction that you're suggesting.

Same thing if tomorrow it was announced that we tracked down bin Laden in a cave somewhere and some marine put one between his eyes.

There'd be grumbling, and disappointment that he wasn't caught alive and given the benefit of a trial, but in the end, is anyone gonna really care all that much?

Now, if it comes out that he was captured alive, and some marine killed him acting on orders from his commander, who was acting on orders from his commander, who was acting on orders from Bush, don't you think that would be worthy of a scandal.

You can answer "No" to that one, BTW.

Probably climb up that elm again...

Here's a New York Post editorial, which follows up on the original story.

I'm really surprised that there hasn't been more comment here from the conservative crowd here.

Is it because Senator Charles ("Deer & Geese") Schumer (D-NY), the senator that the right loves to hate, is against this deal?

Is it because no one from the Bush administration has yet to publicly come out against it ?

I'm sure that if the Liberal Democrats were in some way responsible for this deal, we'd be hearing about it here.

Anyway, here's the editorial.....

February 14, 2006 --

Do the feds really want to place the ports of New York and New Jersey in the hands of a Middle East country with ties to the Sept. 11 hijackers?

As The Post reported on Sunday, that's what's about to happen, now that Dubai Ports World has won control — for $6.8 billion — of British-owned Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

The purchase gives Dubai Ports control of six U.S. ports — including, in addition to New York-New Jersey, Miami, Baltimore, Philadelphia and New Orleans.

True, the deal reportedly was approved by the top-secret U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which decided there was no security risk.

(Note: I'd sure like to know who the members of this "top-secret" committee are

But at a time when security in the ports remains unacceptably lax, we wonder whether this is a wise move.

Dubai Ports, after all, is owned by the United Arab Emirates, whose banking system — considered the commercial center of the Arab world — provided most of the cash for the 9/11 hijackers. Indeed, much of the operational planning for the World Trade Center attacks took place inside the UAE.

And while the Bush folks now consider the UAE a major ally in the war against terror, the Treasury Department has been stonewalled by the emirates, and other Arab countries, in trying to track Osama bin Laden's bank accounts.

The new leader of Dubai, one of the seven small countries that make up the UAE, has said all the right things about fighting radical Islam since 9/11.

But this remains very much an Islamist nation, where preaching any religion other than Islam is prohibited.

New York Sen. Charles Schumer, for one, thinks this is a case where it's better to be safe than sorry.

Noting that the nation's ports "remain top terrorist targets," Schumer rightly argues that "we would not outsource military operations or law-enforcement duties."

Likewise, he says, "we should be very careful before we outsource such sensitive homeland security duties."

The fact is, control of America's ports increasingly is being placed in private — and foreign — hands. And there's no guarantee that today's ally in the War on Terror will remain such tomorrow.

There already is reason enough for concern about security in the ports: Homeland Security officials concede that it is impossible for them to fully inspect all but a tiny percentage of the containers that enter from abroad.

Though no one likes to discuss it publicly, smuggling in weapons of mass destruction likely can most easily be done through the ports.

Supporters of the deal insist that it doesn't give al Qaeda opportunities it doesn't already enjoy. That's no comfort.

I'll admit that my fascination for this story could be due, in large part, to the strong possibility that we can blame yet something else on President Bush.

But still, it seems important to me for whatever the reason.

So.....

You can read more about the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States here:

http://www.treas.gov/offices/international-affairs/exon-florio/

Apparently, this committee was originally created by Executive Order in 1975, and amended in 1988 to include the “Exon-Florio” provision.

This intent of this provision is “not to discourage foreign investment generally, but to provide a mechanism to review and, if the President finds necessary, to restrict foreign investment that threatens the national security”.

What I don’t understand here, BTW, is that the purpose of this committee is to “provide authority to the President to suspend or prohibit any foreign acquisition, merger or takeover of a U.S. corporation that is determined to threaten the national security of the United States.”

And, according to this provision, “the President can exercise this authority under section 721 (also known as the "Exon-Florio provision") to block a foreign acquisition of a U.S. corporation.”

Which does not appear to be the case here.

If I understand correctly what is happening, one foreign company is simply taking over another foreign company, to whom we had sub-contracted the operation of the ports in question.

They are not taking over a U.S. company.

So while obviously, of course, this whole thing should be reviewed somewhere along the line, why the transaction is being reviewed by this particular committee escapes me to begin with.

In any case, according to the stories, it is being reviewed by this Committee On Foreign Investment In The United States, so I guess it’s this committee that we should be holding responsible here.

Anyway, this Exon-Florio provision clearly states that one of the criteria that the president can use in exercising his authority to block such a deal is “(if) there is credible evidence that the foreign entity exercising control might take action that threatens national security.”

It also says that one of the factors that the committee should consider in determining whether or not the transaction should be allowed is whether or not the results of such a transaction leads to “the control of domestic industries and commercial activity by foreign citizens as it affects the capability and capacity of the U.S. to meet the requirements of national security;

All of that said, here are the members of this crackerjack committee:

Secretary of the Treasury (Chairman)
Director of the Office of Science & Technology Policy
The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
The Assistant to the President for Economic Policy
The Secretary of State
The Secretary of Defense
The Secretary of Commerce
The Attorney general
The Director of the Office of Management & Budget
The U.S. Trade Representative
The Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors
The Department of Homeland Security

Looks like about twelve Bush-appointees out of the twelve members.

Follow-up story from today's New York Post

February 16, 2006 -- WASHINGTON —

The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee urged the White House yesterday to reconsider a sale that would give a company in the United Arab Emirates control over operations at six American ports.

Other U.S. lawmakers have expressed concerns about implications of the $6.8 billion sale to government-owned Dubai Ports World, which was approved by a secretive U.S. panel that considers security risks of foreign companies buying or investing in U.S. industry.

Rep. Peter King (R-L.I.) said he spoke to senior White House officials and urged them to review DP World's purchase of the London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which runs commercial operations at shipping terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

"The White House can stop this deal ultimately, and I've asked them to go very slow and look at it very carefully," said King.

I have to agree with Plaw here (despite his incessant thread "bumping" to make people pay attention :p ), that if the President has the power to block this deal, he should. I wouldn't have a huge problem with this normally, should it be a company that was independent of a foreign government, or a reliable government known to be friendly to the United States (i.e. the UK). But when it is subsidized by the UAE, who have high government officials known to be friends of Osama Bin Laden, I simply cannot see how there would be no security risk involved. It would be like leaving the inmates the keys to the asylum, so to speak.

Again, as Fathersson has already mentioned, there are already plenty of foreign companies controlling U.S. businesses and assets. However, in this particular case, the company is directed by the government that is not only related to terrorists, but also with a country that is notorious for its drug shipments to Asia.

As we've already said, this isn't like a foreign company is coming in and making an offer to the U.S. - they are buying out the UK company, which, I would think, legally leaves the United States' hands tied if there is some sort of contract with the original company. If the President interfered in a business deal simply because we objected who was taking over a company, I would think that would be overstepping his bounds. It would be like telling a Finnish company not to buy out a Swedish one because we don't like the Finnish - we really have no jurisdiction.

In the end, does the President have the power to stop an international business deal because of who will be taking over another company? If we want to stop them from taking over our ports, wouldn't it make sense to just cut the deal short with the company and make a deal with a new, friendly company (possibly domestic!).

Well, I will confess to some bumping tactics, but at least they weren't one-word posts with the word "Bump", but legit follow-ups to the original story.

The thought that you and I agree is a scary one, though.

More follow-up, from today's Post.

The Post, BTW, is a very conservative newspaper which almost always supports the Bush administration.

I give them a lot of credit for the editorial they ran and their coverage of this story.

February 17, 2006 -
WASHINGTON —

Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Vito Fossella led lawmakers yesterday in calling on the White House to scuttle the sale of New York's port operations — and five other major harbors — to a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates.

Lawmakers threatened to hold congressional hearings and craft legislation to block the contract if President Bush doesn't stop the sale.

"Imagine if today there was an official announcement that [UAE] was to take over security at our airports. Would not the American people question why and be somewhat outraged that we would delegate authority of our airports to a foreign nation?" Fossella (R-S.I.) quipped.

The $6.8 billion bid by government-owned Dubai Ports World to run shipping operations at six ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Miami and New Orleans recently won approval from a secretive U.S. panel that evaluates the security risks of foreign companies buying U.S. industry.

"Outsourcing the operations . . . to a country with a dubious record on terrorism is a homeland-security and commerce accident waiting to happen," Schumer said.
________________________

Neal liked this part:

"Imagine if today there was an official announcement that [UAE] was to take over security at our airports. Would not the American people question why and be somewhat outraged that we would delegate authority of our airports to a foreign nation?" Fossella (R-S.I.) quipped.

To tell you the truth, in all the commentaries I've heard over the past few days, there is so far NOBODY who supports this, Democrat and Republican alike.

Neither do I and as with Bush's lame immigration policy and the Harriet Meyers nomination, the only thing that comes to mind is what the HELL is this guy thinking???

I've also heard that despite all the protests, it is technically a 'done deal' and at this point there's no turning back, the Arabs will be controlling these ports.

Apple

I dunno....from the inferences that I draw from all of these articles, Bush can still overturn the deal, altho none of the stories spell out the exact procedure for him to do so.

I also don't like the idea that this "Committe on Foreign Investment in the U.S." meets in secret.

One of our members from the Baltimore area who shall remain nameless (Beth knows who she is) sent me this story from their local TV news station:

State Lawmakers Outraged At "Reckless" Port Deal

By Mike Hellgren

(WJZ/AP) BALTIMORE WJZ Eyewitness News attended a news conference at the Port of Baltimore Saturday where several state lawmakers lashed out at the federal government after the approval of the sale of six major American ports, which included the Port of Baltimore, to a state-owned company in the United Arab Emirates--a country that was believed to be a base for September 11 operations.

Baltimore Mayor O'Malley, who co-chairs the U.S. Conference of Mayors' Task Force on Homeland Security, called on President Bush to reverse the decision "to surrender already vulnerable American port operations to a foreign government."

His demand doesn't refer just to the Port of Baltimore, but to all the ports sold under the deal.

"I am calling upon President Bush to reverse the outrageous, the reckless, and the irresponsible decision to turn over American ports to foreign governments," he said.

Senator Barbara Mikulski sent a letter on Thursday to Department of the Treasury Secretary John Snow requesting a full investigation into the UAE's acquisition of the ports.

"Our country's ports are vital to our national security, military capability, and economy. The Administration has a responsibility to ensure that foreign control over certain port operations is thoroughly scrutinized," she wrote. "The American public deserves no less."

A company at the Port of Miami has sued to block the takeover of shipping operations there by the UAE owned business. It is the first American courtroom effort to capsize the sale.

The Miami company, a subsidiary of Eller & Company Inc., presently is a business partner with London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which Dubai Ports World purchased last week. In a lawsuit in Florida circuit court, the Miami subsidiary said that under the sale it will become an "involuntary partner" with Dubai's government and it may seek more than $10 million in damages.

The Miami subsidiary, Continental Stevedoring & Terminals Inc., said the sale to Dubai was prohibited under its partnership agreement with the British firm and "may endanger the national security of the United States." It asked a judge to block the takeover and said it does not believe the company, Florida or the U.S. government can ensure Dubai Ports World's compliance with American security rules.

A spokesman for Peninsular and Oriental indicated the company had not yet seen the lawsuit and declined to comment immediately.

The lawsuit represents the earliest skirmish over lucrative contracts among the six major American ports where Peninsular and Oriental runs major commercial operations: New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. The lawsuit was filed moments before the court closed Friday and disclosed late Saturday by people working on the case.

The Port of Miami is among the nation's busiest. It is a hub for the nation's cruise ships, which carry more than 6 million passengers a year, and the seaport services more than 30 ocean carriers, which delivered more than 1 million cargo containers there last year.

A New Jersey lawmaker said Saturday he intends to require U.S. port security officials be American citizens, to prevent overseas companies operating domestic shipping facilities from hiring foreigners in such sensitive positions. Republican Frank A. LoBiondo, chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, cited "significant" security worries over the sale to Dubai Ports World.

Caught by surprise over the breadth of concerns expressed in the United States, Dubai is cautiously organizing its response. The company quietly dispatched advisers to reassure port officials along the East Coast, and its chief operating officer -- internationally respected American shipping executive Edward "Ted" H. Bilkey -- is expected to travel to Washington this week for meetings on Capitol Hill and elsewhere.

At the Port of Baltimore news conference, O'Malley said only 5 percent of the shipments into the nation's ports are inspected. He said that's a stark contrast to Hong Kong, which inspects 100 percent of shipments.

"I think that they did not take into account the vulnerability of America's ports," O'Malley said in a telephone interview. "I think Congress needs to have further hearings on these things."

The mayor said he will be working to rally opposition against the deal with the leadership of the U.S. Conference of Mayors this month.

Representative Dutch Ruppersburger also voiced his outrage at the news conference.

"Can we as a country gamble by allowing another country to be in charge of our security?" he asked. "This is not Republican or Democrat. This is about the safety of our country."

Ruppersburger says he and other lawmakers will take as much action as they can to have the sale reversed.

"We're going to take this as far as we can because our national security is at stake," he said.

The deal also has sparked opposition on Capitol Hill.

Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., has said he will introduce legislation to prohibit companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from running port operations in the United States.

Under the deal, Dubai Ports World will buy London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

The British company is the world's fourth-largest ports company. It runs commercial operations at shipping terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. Dubai Ports World is owned by the United Arab Emirates.

The Bush administration has defended its decision, saying the sale was "rigorously reviewed" by a U.S. committee that considers security threats when foreign companies seek to buy or invest in American industry.

(Yeah...."rigorously reviewed" in secret -pl ) :rolleyes:

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

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

A representative of the United Arab Emirates defended his country under the sale, saying: "We have worked very closely with the United States on a number of issues related to the combat of terrorism, prior to and post September 11th."

But O'Malley feels the UAE brings a threat of the transportation of nuclear warfare.

"They (the UAE) are a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, to North Korea, to Libya," he said.

The Homeland Security Department has said it was legally impossible under the committee's rules to reconsider its approval without evidence that 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, the department said.

What a convenient coincidence that none of this was made public prior to the ending of the 30-day period -pl

(© 2006 CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.

I have learned recently that not so long ago, a UAE company took over the Santa Fe railroad, which was on life support (like most of the railroads in this country) and there was some controversy surrounding their takeover at that time. Since they have become owners, Santa Fe has had a wave of prosperity, and merged with Burlington Northern to be a successful railroad again.

Not saying that the same thing applies, but it is interesting to note that a UAE company has taken over a part of the United States major transportation/shipping system in the past, and it has been a wholly successful venture for both the U.S. and the UAE.

The risk here is, obviously, that security at the ports involves cargo coming in from other countries while operating a railroad doesn't.

Theonly thing I can think of that operating a port has in common with operating a railroad is that they both involve transportation.

Most of the taxicab drivers (transportation again) in NYC are from Muslim countries, and I don't consider that to be a security risk.

I know, JJ, that you're not saying that you think this UAE-Ports deal is a good idea, so why even mention the Santa Fe Railroad?

I'm just saying - in the past, a UAE takeover of an American company hasn't necessarily been a bad thing. Though certainly the railroads wouldn't be as crucial a security risk as a port, wouldn't it still be possible to ship illegal things (dirty bombs, drugs) in this manner? But nothing has come out to that effect.

Like you said, I don't agree with what is happening. However, I thought that the example was relevant to the discussion.

Well, I'd agree that it isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as the company they are going to operate can't affect out national security.

But I'm sure, though, that if we used our imaginations, we could come up with a way our security could be affected by their running just about any company.

They could easily decide to blow up a train while it's crossing an important bridge, killing 1000 or so passengers and knocking the bridge out.

On another note, D-J, why do you suppose this Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. holds its meetings in secret?

Could possibly be for a few reasons, none of which will please those worried about secret government dealings. One of which could be because they convene to discuss matters of national security, and could be discussing top secret protocols, documents, etc. Another, more conspiratorial route would be that the government, or at least those on the panel, get a taste out of the cash brought about by transactions and such. But that might not be the case.

The first is a valid reason, of course, and doesn't bother me, even though I am concerned with secret government dealings.

But they consider with many other issues besides national security in their deliberations about foreign investment in the U.S..

Perhaps only the part of their discussions dealing with security issues should or could be conducted secretly.

As far as your second possibility goes, of course that may not be the case.

But would you be surprised or shocked to learn that it was?

I know I wouldn't.

Well, I wrote it after all...