Bush ceding US ports to the enemy?

At first I wasn't paying much attention to the news regarding a port deal that the Bush administration is supporting. But after reading about it (here is a link to a cnn article) I was stunned.Now I'm pretty liberal about not demonizing everyone in the mideast and trying to work with them, even if we have some separate ideas about good gov't. HOWEVER, I can not understand how it is a good idea to allow a company owned by a foreign gov't to control six major seaports of the US. Call me crazy but that sounds insane.How can that possibly increase security for this nation? And indeed it is specifically putting our ports into the hands of a nation which could change sides on us sometime in the future, as well as be infiltrated below the top leadership level.The killer for me is that we are actually going to allow them LESS restrictive and intrusive recordkeeping obligations, than people working in the mainstream adult porn industry. Okay lets say people of the US are so concerned about child porn possibly accidentally occuring that they essentially ruin sexual speech for adults, and that this makes sense. Don't those same people (which is the Bush administration and Reps in general) feel the same concern about the possibility of terrorist activity coming through our ports? I mean "smoking gun as atomic cloud" and all that? Isn't that more serious?And how can they be openly worried about border control with mexico, yet be fine with a foreign nation (which is not even a democracy) controlling six separate "borders", with no immediately accessible oversight?Oh yeah, they said they'll let us have whatever access we request and documents we request. Uhmmmm, that's what saddam said, right? We weren't supposed to trust that, right? So what exactly makes this particular gov't different?I'm looking for answers, particularly from Reps, and specifically Bush apologists. This is patently absurd to me, especially at this time in our history. If I am to believe this is a clash of cultures we are engaged in with democracy and human rights being our "side", why is it a good idea to allow six major ports to be run by another nation which is not a democracy and been cited for human and civil rights violations regarding its workforce?

That is an assertion. I am suggesting that it most certainly can change, given that we are changing the nature of the company running the port and how it will handle its recordkeeping activities. If the security is to remain the same, we will have to increase our own efforts and spending to make up for deficits due to the change. A gov't owned business is not capitalism, it is fascism or socialism. And more importantly this is not like allowing a UAE business to open a store in Times Square. This is about having a nationally owned business control 6 major ports of ours. In the era of increased security concerns that seems like insanity.Shall we have an Afghani or Pakistani owned company take over control of a few major airports? Would that make sense at all? An intelligent enemy would never blow up the port. They would use the port as access to a nation to blow up or otherwise hinder the nation. And I am not trying to claim that the UAE is actually an enemy and inteds to do something nefarious. I'm saying that this will allow people who might infiltrate that structure, or perhaps future leaders of the UAE, to work against our national interests.Ports are very important to our nation. Foreign control of our ports does not feel right. Yes, and Iraq agreed to let the inspectors back in and have full access. Agreements don't mean much in practice do they, when one is faced with a less than honest opponent. 1) I didn't blame Bush alone. I blamed his administration, as well as reps who are now supporting it. Since Bush is supporting it he gets the blame along with everyone else.
2) Bush must have known something about this. If he didn't that is actually a whole other problem. How could he as president, not be aware of at least the outline if not the details of a deal involving a nationalized business from the mideast gaining control of 6 major ports? If I were president I would have been extremely interested in information at most stages of that. Can I ask who you believe is responsible for the deal?
3) I stated that I had not been following this story and had assumed that any negative comments would have been related to a protectivist position, which I would have had sympathy for. Thus he (and other reps) could have done something I agreed with by not allowing this to happen. That would have been the "old" rep thing to do. Yet they pulled a 180 and are supporting it??? I like how we unions are thought to be problematic for airports, but a foreign gov't owned (fascist) business is thought to be something positive for water ports. Ahem, I preferred him over Gore. Gosh what was I blaming him for then? I supported some of his plans after 911. Gosh what was I blaming him for then? I have stated that I supported some of his more controversial plans. Gosh what was I blaming him for then?You are an apologist because you have gone on to defend positions Bush has taken long after he himself has discarded them. You have even defended positions which are completely opposite to the platform he ran on initially and Reps supported for decades before Bush hit office.I may seem to be blaming him alot, and that would be true. But that is not because I have to. I can say where I think he is rightand have done so. It just so happens that the guy has shattered my assumptions regarding the quality of job he would perform, and has instead run an administration producing a long string of errors. He and his people have been screwing things up pretty consistently.This one took me as much by surprise as an idea that we'd engage in nation-building using the US military.This message has been edited by holmes, 02-23-2006 04:20 PM

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

I'm answering yoru last two posts to me in this one... Foreign control of ports should be of concern to us no matter WHO it is. If we should be supporting anything, it should be getting an american company in control of our ports. But that is not the whole point here.The companies are British, not owned by the British gov't (I don't know about the singapore companies). Likewise that gov't is democratic and a western power. Not a theocratic state which could potentially shift alignment in the near future, from a region that has a history of rapidly shifting alignments. A change from one to the other a caretaker of a port is a shift in a very negative direction.I might add I have no idea what business issues the British have, but the UAE as a business owner has been cited for human and civil rights abuses. Don't you believe we'd have to work a little less with Britain who has a friendly and certain intelligence system, than a theocratic state with a borderline and almost nonexistant intelligence system? We are taking on extra work based on this deal, and not to our benefit (for example if we made everything in house). Potentially that is true, but obviously we can keep better tabs on what happens here as opposed to what happens there. In this case the owners are a bunch of theocrats (I'm not being hyperbolic that is actually the nature of the gov't) who don't have to answer to us other than as a foreign state. And as I mentioned earlier this deal actually gives them more control over records than mainstream porn companies in the US. Doesn't that seem a bit backwards? But that is wrong. It would be refused because it is a foreign company owned by a theocratic gov't. in a turbulent part of the world with a history of changing allegiences, being put in a position where it will have control of 6 major ports, at a time where we are facing determined theocratic enemies from that region.Honestly, turning them down on this cannot be defended based on improving diplomacy in that part of the world. How about NOT INVADING nations? I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to do business here, just not put in charge of our major arteries. I'm not claiming that the UAE is a threat, or that they have any ill intentions with this deal. The point is that our ports are vital and in an era where we are supposed to be security conscious, perhaps we should be conscious of what such a deal means for our security.It is NOT a step forward for security, and as I noted with irony has now given a theocratic state in a turbulent area where our current enemy is located, more freedom than we grant porn producers in the US.History has shown that nations in that area are prone to power shifts and also problems arising from religious zealotry. Take a look at where that nation is on the map. Iran is a stone's throw away. Suppose it got embroiled in a conflict with Iran, or worse its hereditary rulers shift allegience to Iranian belief systems, or worse?This is not to mention that as a business owner they have a history of abuse. And they will be in charge of employment for our ports? I can't wait to see their hiring practices regarding gays and women. I wasn't talking about all business and that is an unfair strawman of my position. I was talking about control of our ports.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Ahhhhh, this is true. I am not meaning to say bad things will happen. For all I know the UAE may be more efficient a manager of our ports than the British company.I'm looking at this from a different perspective.1) I was in large part arguing this from the original Rep perspective regarding security within the US. They do play doomsday scenarios, so that they didn't here is really a switcheroo. Control the borders against mexicans because we may be overrun by terrorists, but remove control of ports to a theocratic nation? There seems to be a major inconsistency here and I was trying to draw that out.2) I was also pointing out that the practical elements actually gave greater freedom to a foreign power controlling our ports, than US adults engaged in free speech of a sexual nature. We are willing to tolerate privacy and autonomy of a foreign power operating on our soil, but not to US citizens simply trying to communicate about something that can't result in mass destruction? That's another inconsistency I was trying to draw out.I will say that the history of that region does not assure me that this is in our best interests. Who is to say that the next set of of hereditary rulers change away from being US friendly, or that regional conflict impedes their ability to manage our ports?Assuming stability might be nice, but its odd, especially when one of the things we said we want to foster in that region is democracy. The UAE is not, and the last time a democratic feeling swept through an Islamic nation aligned tightly to us, and accused of abusing its people, we ended up with a nation highly opposed to the US.I don't believe disallowing such nations control over vital spots within this nation is treating them like outcasts. It is acting defensively regarding our interests. I'm sort of certain they have many things they would not allow in THEIR nation, from ours, including control of vital assets. Exactly. And this is a problem in and of itself. Its not just that they did something out of character for stated conservative values, out of step with controls they place on less vital interests, and have potentially increased longterm security issues... they couldn't even figure out how to manage the process of the deal, or understand that it might be problematic to have everyone learn about it in the fashion they did.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

I actually did not bring up the fact that a couple of the hijackers were from UAE. And I stated that I am not trying to make this an anti-Islamic type thing.The title of this thread, while hyperbolic, was supposed to be ironic. Given this administration's rhetoric, don't their actions regarding this deal seem highly contradictory and if it had been a dem suggesting it, wouldn't it have been played as giving in to the enemy?As it stands I think this deal is bad for this nation, regardless of if they were Islamic or not.All this said, I have to say I do not believe 911 was setup by Bush and I doubt he'd trying to create some new problem. If there is an issue here, it would probably be graft as you suggest. If that is true it is very troubling.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

As you saw, later in my post I tone things down a bit. I also agree with Jazzns that it is knee jerk to claim that bad things will certainly come. But this administration has used this before and regarding security issues like these, when they did not involve as questionable of entities as a theocratic state and as important a thing as a port.I was ironically using their own method to highlight their inconsistency. But to make clear I do feel it is a bad idea, and am making more concise arguments about that outside of my question of why the Bush administration and Reps would support such a deal. Okay, that claim makes no sense given the context. The gov't is essentially a hereditary theocracy. That means there is absolutely no independent oversight capability by anyone with regards to how the companies that gov't owns is run. What mechanism for accountability would there be? You misunderstood, the UAE has been cited for mistreating its employees and engaging in bad hiring practices, which would not be allowed for western nations. I wasn't discussing anything outside of the realm that they'd actually have control of regarding port management. The potential for problems to arise is greater with such a nationalized company. It will force us to increase our own security measures and thus cost us more. First of all they have people working in their own country. A person working in the US under control of a company from that country may have a glass ceiling or even an iron one.Second, there is no sense that they must abide by labor laws. The Bush administration has sought and if I remember correctly won the right to allow faith based groups to operate against US labor laws. Given that it is a theocratic state, I don't see why they could not be considered a faith based agency.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

That doesn't challenge the point I was making. Given security concerns of the modern world, that in itself might not be a policy to continue as it has been in the past. Given credible differences between a foreign company within a friendly stable nation, and a foreign company owned by a hereditary theocracy in a region marked by instability this trade in specific may not be a policy to treat like business as usual.Given the rhetoric of this administration regarding security and the nature of our goals in the mideast, as well as longstanding republican ideals about both, there is an unusual inconsistency. I'm sorry, are you claiming that the UAE does not block import or control of various industries coming from the US based on spurious grounds including security? And given that we have just given carte blanche to nations to invade any other at any moment based on spurious security grounds... what's so extra upsetting about not owning businesses operating major ports?

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

It doesn't have to be an active security risk, to be something one does not put in a position of trust regarding something that is a security concern. PORTS are a security concern, not the UAE. We need to make sure PORTS have the BEST protection.I am not seeing how a shift in control from a company in a stable nation, to a hereditary theocratic gov't owned company in a region of relative insecurity is a way to improve longterm security concerns of those ports.I am mystified how the same administration that imposes draconian recordkeeping regulations on US companies involved in entertainment, cuts the above company in charge of ports extra leniency on recordkeeping obligations.I never argued the UAE is a security concern for the US. But even if it was, I would not be for invading it in a pre-emptive fashion in order to build a new nation, you know like we did in Iraq, against every stated principle of Reps during the entire Clinton administration.I'm looking for an explanation of consistency, specifically with regard to increasing security at vital points of national interest.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

For things like recordkeeping? And as I pointed to, and so did crash, this administration has granted them concessions. The potential for problems rises with increases in potential for instability, mechanisms for radical change, and lack of transparency/accountability.A nationalized company will have less accountability, given that a gov't may more easily merge company interests with its own. A theocratic nation will contain more mechanisms for radical change in policy, as well as merging other interests with corporate interests. A hereditary theocratic nation contains a greater potential for instability and radical change as policy is linked to individuals or individual families maintaining power, rather than a processes for stable change based on interests of the public, not to mention no reason or mechanism for transparency/accountability.That the nation is located within a region of historic instability, does not help. No that's true, but in a theocratic state operating outside the US, they may be enforced with little recourse to justice. It might be restated that they already have a public record of such abuses, unlike other companies which might actually get excluded from such work on US projects. Of course as I pointed out the Bush administration is trying to cut that kind of protection out anyway.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Unfortunately not as many as there should be. They were even carting out McCain and Dole to defend this.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

If that is true, isn't it problematic given the obvious security issues?

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

I already explained this and then you stopped answering me. I'm not stepping on a treadmill with you. Here is a brief summary, if you cannot deal with it then stop answering altogether:1) Documentation is being allowed to be held in a different manner than MANDATED for US companies due to security concerns, and for US companies it is not even national security issues like WMDs. This administration wholly rejected similar pleas by those in the US industries saying all measures must be taken to maximize safety, yet this is not the case with a business who will be in charge of Major Ports? If they are consistent then THEY are allowing for greater security risks.2) The company is nationally owned, by a gov't which is a hereditary theocracy with a record of civil rights abuse (of employees), and exists in a region of rather obvious instability. This sets up longterm issues for strife and other problems. For instance Iran could disrupt that nation such that it effects management of the ports, or internal dissent within that nation (perhaps as they move toward freedom we claim to be supporting) could disrupt the nation in a similar fashion.3) The combination of 1 & 2 presents an added risk for undetected infiltration into the company by opposition elements. While we may be able to have security in place we will now have to add assets to keep the same level of security we have now. It is a cost to us.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Oh man, that is good. Maybe we'll see that pop up soon. Then I'd like some reporter ask why we don't let them take over management of our federal buildings and nuclear reactors as well.Heck let them run our military bases! What better way to show everyone how much we trust people in the MidEast, and at the same time force them to prove how honest they are.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

I haven't seen that yet. Latest news I'm getting is that DHS originally was against the deal (gee Tal what security concerns?), until adjustments were made. Of course since then more changes have been made (vocally if not on paper) by the company regarding security obligations, and the CIA has not reviewed the security situation yet (claiming they were waiting for DHS to point the way).One of the things I love, Michael Moore is the name of the senior VP for the section of the Dubai company involved with this deal. Bush administration makes deal with Michael Moore to allow Arab Theocratic nation to run major ports within the US! Sounds great to me.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Actually I had mentioned that this involves civil rights for worker issues as well. While I assume no child slavery or sexual slavery will be involved with the ports, there are other issues as well. They do have discriminative hiring practices and less than transparent business workings (though I guess I should note that a conservative columnist says that they are "getting better").Weren't reps the one's knocking Clinton for getting cozy with China in the face of human rights issues? Guess when it comes to problems in a more capitalist workforce that's not so much an issue.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)