Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
AP
Fear Escalates on Foreign Control of Ports
Saturday February 18, 5:36 pm ET
By Ted Bridis, Associated Press Writer
Fear Escalates Over Sale of Port Operations to Arab Firm; Lawmaker Seeks Citizenship Requirements
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A New Jersey congressman said Saturday he wants to require that security officials at U.S. ports be American citizens to prevent overseas companies operating shipping facilities here from hiring foreigners in such sensitive positions.
ADVERTISEMENT
Republican Frank A. LoBiondo, chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, cited "significant" security concerns over a $6.8 billion sale that gives a company in the United Arab Emirates control over operations at six major American ports.
LoBiondo said he wants the new mandatory citizenship requirements approved by Congress and President Bush before state-owned Dubai Ports World completes its pending purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.
The British company, the world's fourth-largest ports company, runs major commercial operations at shipping terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
The Bush administration earlier approved the deal, which has drawn escalating criticism by lawmakers who maintain the United Arab Emirates is not consistent in its support of U.S. terrorism-fighting efforts.
Caught by surprise over the breadth of concerns expressed in the United States, Dubai Ports World 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 -- was expected to travel to Washington soon for meetings on Capitol Hill and elsewhere.
Meanwhile, the Bush administration is defending its approval of the sale, and strongly resisting demands by Congress to reconsider.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack described the United Arab Emirates on Friday as "a long-standing friend and ally" and said the United States and UAE had a good relationship.
Bush visited the port in Tampa, Fla., on Friday but did not mention the dispute. Bush said an important element of defeating terrorism was taking precautions domestically and working with local officials.
"We've got to protect ourselves by doing smart things in America," Bush said. "I appreciate working with the mayors on homeland security issues."
But one of those mayors, Martin O'Malley of Baltimore, criticized Bush's approval of the ports deal as an "outrageous, reckless and irresponsible decision" and urged the president to reconsider.
O'Malley, co-chairman of the U.S. Conference of Mayors' Task Force on Homeland Security, also is seeking the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in Maryland.
"I think that they did not take into account the vulnerability of America's ports," O'Malley said Saturday in a telephone interview. "I think Congress needs to have further hearings on these things."
He said only 5 percent of the shipments into the nation's ports are inspected, calling that a stark contrast to Hong Kong, which inspects 100 percent of shipments.
Dubai Ports World declined through a spokesman to respond to O'Malley's remarks.
In New York, families of some victims from the September 2001 terror attacks planned to criticize the deal Sunday during a press conference with Sen. Charles Schumer, a leading critic of the sale. Schumer, D-N.Y., said he is dubious any assurances can justify the UAE's involvement in American ports.
Schumer and others have cited the UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks against New York and Washington.
"A lot of families are incensed by this, because you're talking about the safety of the country," said William Doyle, whose son Joseph died at the World Trade Center. "We have a problem already in our ports because all of our containers aren't checked, but now they want to add this unknown? It's not right."
LoBiondo's legislative proposal would amend federal maritime laws to require facility security officers, which operate at terminals in every U.S. port, to be American citizens. LoBiondo said there now are no citizenship requirements, which he said permits foreign companies with a stake in U.S. terminal operations to employ security officers who are not Americans.
"We cannot be lax about our nation's security nor fail to recognize that our ports are realistic targets of terrorists," LoBiondo said.
Associated Press Writer Brian Witte in Baltimore contributed to this report.
I have a rough time with this administration, first they have no problem keeping secrets from me in the name of ultimate safety but this they see as no big deal?
Sad.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
__________________
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
This IS a big deal, and yes, I too have a big problem with it. It flat shouldn't be happening.
__________________
Here's to the Army and Navy and the battles they have won; here's to America's colors, the colors that never run. May the wings of liberty never lose a feather. ....
The selling of America needs to be stopped, now. Wouldn't upset me if all past land sales to foreign interests were investigated and seized under that new
eminent domain law that took place last year. Ooops, I am liberal. Never mind what I said.
P.S. What the hades do they know about running ports anyway. They live in the desert.
__________________
In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire
On its face it sounds like a bad idea, but Dubai Ports World is a state-backed company that happens to be the third largest ports company in the world. It is not the UAE government. Its interests shouldn't be considered the same as the UAE government, nor should the UAE government's interests be considered the same as the hijackers who were trafficked through their country.
I mean, the U.S. let the hijackers' American visas expire. Does that mean a U.S. ports company should be barred from running these ports?
I'm not saying the idea is good or bad, just that it needs more investigation.
The move lacks sensitivity to the issues at hand at the least.
I have a problem with screaming about terrorisim at every turn and bludgenoning us all over the head with it for every concievable use then yawning at this and saying, Oh, that? It's no big deal.
It's ironic for sure.
__________________
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
The move lacks sensitivity to the issues at hand at the least.
I have a problem with screaming about terrorisim at every turn and bludgenoning us all over the head with it for every concievable use then yawning at this and saying, Oh, that? It's no big deal.
It's ironic for sure.
right on - funny how the Bush Admin and it's supporter use the '9/11 changed everything' BS when convienent, but business as usual when it comes to helping their business buddies.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration needs to show Congress why national security won't be hurt by a deal that gives a company based in the United Arab Emirates management of six major U.S. ports, former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said Monday.
Ridge, appearing on CNN's "American Morning," said, "I think the anxiety and the concern [over the deal] that has been expressed by congressmen and senators and elsewhere is legitimate."
Ridge said that during his tenure as secretary of homeland security from October 2001 to February 2005, he sat in on deals with similar national security concerns and officials would not jeopardize national security.
"The bottom line is I think we need a little more transparency here," he said. "There are legitimate concerns about who would be in charge of hiring and firing and security measures -- added technology in these ports that we need to upgrade our security." (Watch lawmakers call for deal to be stopped -- 2:55)
Ridge recommended that the Bush administration go to Capitol Hill to show how America's security will be enhanced by the deal.
"I suspect they can do that," he said.
Earlier this month, shareholders of British-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O) approved the company's acquisition by a group owned by Dubai Ports World, which is based in the capital of the United Arab Emirates.
The Bush administration says the UAE is a key ally in the war on terror, but some lawmakers have suggested the small Persian Gulf nation might have terrorist ties.
According to the 9/11 commission report, at least one of the 19 hijackers drew money from bank accounts based in the UAE to help pay for operations. And, according to the report, hijacker Marwan al-Shehhi was from the UAE.
Lawmakers call for probe
Several lawmakers on Sunday questioned the deal, with two senators calling for a congressional probe.
"We certainly should investigate it," Sen. Lindsey Graham told Fox News.
"I don't know if we should block it. But it's unbelievably tone deaf politically at this point in our history, four years after 9/11, to entertain the idea of turning port security over to a company based in the UAE, who avows to destroy Israel," the South Carolina Republican added.
Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh agreed.
"I think we've got to look into this company," he told Fox.
Bayh added that the threshold for approving a foreign company's takeover of a U.S. company needs to be high.
"We have to do, even if it costs us a couple extra bucks, what it takes to protect this country," he said.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said the sale was reviewed by several federal agencies.
"You know, this issue comes up periodically every time a foreign-owned company wants to take over an asset that has national security significance," he said on CNN's "Late Edition."
"And there is a legal process Congress created for a committee to sit and review this. It's Treasury, Commerce, DHS, FBI is involved, and DOD is involved. We look at these transactions," Chertoff added.
"If necessary, we build in conditions or requirements that, for extra security, would have to be met in order to make sure that there isn't a compromise to national security."
Schumer: 'Accident waiting to happen'
Sen. Charles Schumer denounced the deal, saying the UAE has "a sad history with terrorism."
Speaking at a news conference Sunday with some families of people killed in the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on the United States, the New York Democrat said, "These families know the danger of being careless and casual about terrorism."
He called on Bush to intervene.
"Outsourcing the operations of our largest ports to a country with long involvement in terrorism is a homeland security accident waiting to happen," he said.
Possible legislation
London-based P&O has been running ports in the United States since 1999, according to the company Web site. The six ports affected are in New York; New Jersey; Baltimore, Maryland; Miami, Florida; New Orleans, Louisiana; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; .
On Friday, Sens. Robert Menendez, D-New Jersey, and Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, announced they planned to introduce legislation that would ban companies owned by foreign governments from controlling operations at U.S. ports.
Menendez said Sunday that Chertoff's comments show "that the Bush administration just does not get it."
"No matter what steps the administration claims it has secretly taken, it is an unacceptable risk to turn control of our ports over to a foreign government, particularly one with a troubling history," he said in a statement. "We cannot depend on promises a foreign government has given the administration in secret to secure our ports."
The move lacks sensitivity to the issues at hand at the least.
I have a problem with screaming about terrorisim at every turn and bludgenoning us all over the head with it for every concievable use then yawning at this and saying, Oh, that? It's no big deal.
It's ironic for sure.
You don't see the difference between profiling " desert dwellers" and giving carte blanche to Saudi businessmen? Shame on you.
Last week I would have used a " sarcasm intended " smiley.
__________________
In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire
Didn't a whole bunch of people get their undershorts in a wad when Long Beach port was up for sale to the Chinese. Johnny Chang and Clinton. I finally found a use for a " right wing blog". Just to compare admins and Congressional reaction.
WND Exclusive Long Beach won't give up on COSCO
Congress kills bid by Chinese to take over naval base
Posted: September 21, 1998
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Although Congress has killed a deal to lease the abandoned Long Beach Naval Station to a Chinese shipping company, local officials are still fighting to make other accommodations to keep the China Ocean Shipping Co. from leaving the harbor.
Port of Long Beach officials were officially stripped of their ability to lease the former Navy land to COSCO late last week, when congressional conferees submitted to Congress the 1998-1999 defense authorization bill. The legislation's final language effectively prohibits the Chinese company from leasing any part of the Long Beach Naval Station after it is converted into a cargo terminal. Officials said there is virtually no chance of amending the bill.
The legislation does not leave a provision for the president to waive the ban. It was President Clinton himself, who, after meeting with Chinese officials, first proposed basing the Chinese company, a front for the People's Liberation Army and Beijing's intelligence arm, at the former naval yard.
John W. Hancock, president of the Board of Harbor Commissioners, said the port will begin talks as soon as possible with three or four major shipping lines that are interested in acquiring more terminal space. The companies, which Hancock declined to identify, already hold leases in the Port of Long Beach. Port officials said they would try to find a new site for COSCO if other shipping lines in the harbor move onto naval station grounds. COSCO, which is one of the largest shipping lines in the world, has operated in the port since 1981.
"Congress has thrown two years of effort out the window due to a ridiculous political climate," Hancock said. "Our plans are to go forward posthaste with development of the base. There is time to get new tenants."
Leading the effort to block COSCO from the facility were Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-OK, and Reps. Duncan Hunter and Randy "Duke" Cunningham, both San Diego-area Republicans. They and their conservative colleagues asserted that Chinese Communists could use the former base for military purposes and intelligence-gathering, allegations first raised in WorldNetDaily more than 18 months ago. Port officials and COSCO supporters disputed that contention citing two recent Department of Defense reports show that the shipping line does not present a national security threat to the United States.
"COSCO has a long and very troubling record of shipping both weapons and components of mass destruction around the world," said Hunter. "For all practical purposes, COSCO is the merchant marine of the Chinese military. As a result, they carry the cargo of the Chinese military upon command and without question. We do not need to increase their access to American soil."
The pro-COSCO forces lost ground in the debate because of controversies surrounding the export of U.S. satellites to China and alleged Chinese political contributions to President Clinton and the Democratic Party -- ties first made, again, in WorldNetDaily.
"Our concern is that at some point in the future, if relations were to turn sour because of our mutually opposed interests, that COSCO, being an arm of the government and the military, would be in a position to do damage to us through espionage, smuggling and otherwise carrying out the agenda of the Chinese military," said Harald Stavenas, press secretary to Hunter.
Last Friday, local politicians and harbor officials criticized Congress for jeopardizing trade with China and punishing the port for no reason. Already, the Chinese have indicated that they may reject proposals to build terminals for two U.S.-based shipping lines.
"We are dismayed that members of Congress could push through legislation this destructive and ignore the facts of the situation," said Yvonne Avila, the communications director for the Port of Long Beach.
The Port of Long Beach fears that its longtime tenant could simply move across the harbor to a new berth in the Port of Los Angeles. Officials there have presented COSCO with a proposal to lease space at Pier 400, which is being built. They last met three weeks ago.
New talks were planned for next month, but those have been canceled, said Barbara Yamamoto, public information director for the Port of Los Angeles. COSCO foes in Congress have threatened to expand the ban to the Port of Los Angeles, which receives federal funds for dredging operations.
"There is nothing definite at this point," Yamamoto said. "The political concerns have to be considered seriously. Who knows? Congress might say COSCO can't call on facilities in our port."
Despite their defeat, Long Beach officials said they will push ahead with plans to convert the 400-acre base into a new cargo terminal and ship repair facility. Hazardous waste is already being removed from the facility and preparations are underway to demolish structures on the site. The Navy, which now leases the base to the port, is scheduled to transfer title to the property by 2000.
Get the special report that killed COSCO -- now only $7.95.
Joseph Farah is editor and chief executive officer of WorldNetDaily.com.
__________________
In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire
Didn't a whole bunch of people get their undershorts in a wad when Long Beach port was up for sale to the Chinese. Johnny Chang and [CENSORED BY THE LEFT WING]. I finally found a use for a " right wing blog". Just to compare admins and Congressional reaction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallyburger
WND Exclusive Long Beach won't give up on COSCO
Congress kills bid by Chinese to take over naval base
Posted: September 21, 1998
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Although Congress has killed a deal to lease the abandoned Long Beach Naval Station to a Chinese shipping company, local officials are still fighting to make other accommodations to keep the China Ocean Shipping Co. from leaving the harbor.
Port of Long Beach officials were officially stripped of their ability to lease the former Navy land to COSCO late last week, when congressional conferees submitted to Congress the 1998-1999 defense authorization bill. The legislation's final language effectively prohibits the Chinese company from leasing any part of the Long Beach Naval Station after it is converted into a cargo terminal. Officials said there is virtually no chance of amending the bill.
The legislation does not leave a provision for the president to waive the ban. It was President [CENSORED BY THE LEFT WING] himself, who, after meeting with Chinese officials, first proposed basing the Chinese company, a front for the People's Liberation Army and Beijing's intelligence arm, at the former naval yard.
John W. Hancock, president of the Board of Harbor Commissioners, said the port will begin talks as soon as possible with three or four major shipping lines that are interested in acquiring more terminal space. The companies, which Hancock declined to identify, already hold leases in the Port of Long Beach. Port officials said they would try to find a new site for COSCO if other shipping lines in the harbor move onto naval station grounds. COSCO, which is one of the largest shipping lines in the world, has operated in the port since 1981.
"Congress has thrown two years of effort out the window due to a ridiculous political climate," Hancock said. "Our plans are to go forward posthaste with development of the base. There is time to get new tenants."
Leading the effort to block COSCO from the facility were Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-OK, and Reps. Duncan Hunter and Randy "Duke" Cunningham, both San Diego-area Republicans. They and their conservative colleagues asserted that Chinese Communists could use the former base for military purposes and intelligence-gathering, allegations first raised in WorldNetDaily more than 18 months ago. Port officials and COSCO supporters disputed that contention citing two recent Department of Defense reports show that the shipping line does not present a national security threat to the United States.
"COSCO has a long and very troubling record of shipping both weapons and components of mass destruction around the world," said Hunter. "For all practical purposes, COSCO is the merchant marine of the Chinese military. As a result, they carry the cargo of the Chinese military upon command and without question. We do not need to increase their access to American soil."
The pro-COSCO forces lost ground in the debate because of controversies surrounding the export of U.S. satellites to China and alleged Chinese political contributions to President [CENSORED BY THE LEFT WING] and the Democratic Party -- ties first made, again, in WorldNetDaily.
"Our concern is that at some point in the future, if relations were to turn sour because of our mutually opposed interests, that COSCO, being an arm of the government and the military, would be in a position to do damage to us through espionage, smuggling and otherwise carrying out the agenda of the Chinese military," said Harald Stavenas, press secretary to Hunter.
Last Friday, local politicians and harbor officials criticized Congress for jeopardizing trade with China and punishing the port for no reason. Already, the Chinese have indicated that they may reject proposals to build terminals for two U.S.-based shipping lines.
"We are dismayed that members of Congress could push through legislation this destructive and ignore the facts of the situation," said Yvonne Avila, the communications director for the Port of Long Beach.
The Port of Long Beach fears that its longtime tenant could simply move across the harbor to a new berth in the Port of Los Angeles. Officials there have presented COSCO with a proposal to lease space at Pier 400, which is being built. They last met three weeks ago.
New talks were planned for next month, but those have been canceled, said Barbara Yamamoto, public information director for the Port of Los Angeles. COSCO foes in Congress have threatened to expand the ban to the Port of Los Angeles, which receives federal funds for dredging operations.
"There is nothing definite at this point," Yamamoto said. "The political concerns have to be considered seriously. Who knows? Congress might say COSCO can't call on facilities in our port."
Despite their defeat, Long Beach officials said they will push ahead with plans to convert the 400-acre base into a new cargo terminal and ship repair facility. Hazardous waste is already being removed from the facility and preparations are underway to demolish structures on the site. The Navy, which now leases the base to the port, is scheduled to transfer title to the property by 2000.
Get the special report that killed COSCO -- now only $7.95.
Joseph Farah is editor and chief executive officer of WorldNetDaily.com.
I recken our government has more of a historical Chinese phobia - than Arab.
