Pourous Borders + Bush's Port Deal ='s Cheney's Prediction ?

Note from Steve, And the Republicans (ala Karl Rove ?) campaigned on Securing the United States and keeping you safe on the homefront by fighting the terrorists "over there" so we won't have to fight them "over here" ! Is anyone else smelling a big ole fresh pile of Turd Blossoms ? And, by the way, Securing the Borders and Ports is NOT Isolationist ! So what are you ? Take the quiz

here...

and find out who you are !
---------
Cheney: Future attack on U.S. 'almost certain'

May 20, 2002 Posted: 3:58 AM EDT (0758 GMT)
Cheney: "Not a matter of if, but when."
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- It is "almost certain" that the United States will again be attacked by terrorists, Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday.
Recent reports of increased communications among suspected al Qaeda operatives are reminders that the war against terrorism remains in high gear, Cheney said.
"In my opinion, prospect of a future attack against the United States is almost certain," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "We don't know if it's going to be tomorrow or next week or next year." He added that it was "not a matter of if, but when."

source: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/05/20/cheney.terrorism/index.html
--------------
February 15, 2006 Edition / Opinion

Peril in Port

By FRANK J. GAFFNEY JR.
February 15, 2006

How would you feel if, in the aftermath of September 11, the U.S. government had decided to contract out airport security to the United Arab Emirates, the country where most of the operational planning and financing of the attacks occurred? My guess is that you, like most Americans, would think it a lunatic idea, one that could clear the way for still more terror in this country. You probably would want to know who on earth approved such a plan - and be determined to prevent it from happening.
Of course, no such thing occurred after September 11, 2001. In fact, the job of keeping our planes and the flying public secure was deemed to be so important that the government itself took it over from private contractors seen as insufficiently rigorous in executing that responsibility.
Now, however, four-and-a-half years later, a secretive government committee has decided to turn over the management of six of the nation's most important ports - in New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Miami, Baltimore, and New Orleans - to Dubai Ports World, following the UAE company's purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which previously had the contract.
This is not the first time this interagency panel - called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States - has made an astounding call about the transfer of control of strategically sensitive U.S. assets to questionable purchasers. In fact, as of last summer, CFIUS had, since its creation in 1988, formally rejected only one of 1,530 transactions submitted for its review.
Such a record is hardly surprising given that the committee is chaired by the Treasury Department, whose institutional responsibilities include promoting foreign investment in the United States. Treasury has rarely seen a foreign purchase of American assets that it did not like. And this bias on the part of the chairman of CFIUS has consistently skewed the results of the panel's deliberations in favor of approving deals, even those opposed by other, more national security-minded departments. Thanks to the secrecy with which CFIUS operates, it is not clear at this writing whether any such objection was heard with respect to the idea of contracting out management of six of our country's most important ports to a UAE company. There would certainly appear to be a number of grounds for rejecting this initiative, however:
* America's seaports have long been recognized by homeland security experts as among our most vulnerable targets. Huge quantities of cargo move through them every day, much of it of uncertain character and provenance, nearly all of it inadequately monitored. Matters can only be made worse by port managers who might conspire to bring in dangerous containers, or simply look the other way when they arrive.
* Entrusting information about key U.S. ports - including, presumably, government-approved plans for securing them, to say nothing of the responsibility for controlling physical access to these facilities, to a country known to have been penetrated by terrorists is not just irresponsible. It is recklessly so.
* At the risk of being politically incorrect, the proposed new management will also complicate the job of assuring that the personnel working in these ports pose no threat to their operations - or to the rest of us. To the extent that we must remain particularly vigilant about young male Arab nationals as potential terrorists, it makes no sense to provide legitimate grounds for such individuals to be in and around some of this country's most important strategic assets.
* Of particular concern must be the implications for energy security as a very large proportion of the nation's oil imports come through the Atlantic and Gulf State ports that the UAE company hopes to take over. For example, Philadelphia alone handles some 85% of the oil coming into the East Coast; New Orleans is responsible for one-seventh of all of our imported energy.
Given such considerations, the question occurs: How could even a stacked deck like the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States find it possible to approve the Dubai Ports World's transaction?
Could it have been influenced by the fact that a former senior official of the UAE company, David Sanborn, was recently named the new administrator of the Transportation Department's Maritime Administration? Until recently, Mr. Sanborn was DP World's director of operations for Europe and Latin America.
Or is it because the U.S. government views - and is determined to portray - the United Arab Emirates as a vital ally in this war for the Free World? A similar determination has long caused Washington to treat Saudi Arabia as a valued friend, even as the Saudis continue playing a double game whereby they work simultaneously to repress terrorism at home and abet it abroad.
Whatever the explanation, the nation can simply no longer afford to have the disposition of strategic assets - including those that have a military or homeland security dimension - determined by a Treasury-dominated panel whose deliberations and decisions are made in secret without congressional oversight.
Either the president or Congress should see to it that the United Arab Emirates is not entrusted with the operation of any American ports, and that the Treasury Department is stripped of the lead role in evaluating such dubious foreign investments in the United States.
Mr. Gaffney is president of the Center for Security Policy (www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org) and lead author of "War Footing: Ten Steps America Must Take to Prevail in the War for the Free World."
-----------------
US lawmakers urge review of Dubai Ports deal

Thu Feb 16, 2006 4:43 PM ET

By Caroline Drees, Security Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government should urgently review the security implications of a $6.8 billion deal granting a Dubai-based company management over key ports including New York, U.S. lawmakers said on Thursday, citing terrorism concerns.
Analysts and port sources doubted the takeover of British company P&O by Dubai Ports World would have any impact on security. They cited multiple layers of screening and protection involved in global shipping, particularly among such major operators.
P&O shareholders voted on Monday in favor of the multibillion-dollar bid, giving the United Arab Emirates-backed firm control over the management of P&O's global operations, including in the major U.S. ports of New York and New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New Orleans and Miami.
The deal makes Dubai Ports World the world's third largest ports group.
"Outsourcing the operations of our largest ports to a country with a dubious record on terrorism is a homeland security and commerce accident waiting to happen," said Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat.
Treasury spokeswoman Brookly McLaughlin said the 12-agency Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, chaired by Treasury Secretary John Snow, had reviewed the transaction and did not object.
Snow is a former chairman of freight rail company CSX Corp., which sold its global port assets to Dubai Ports World for $1.15 billion in 2004 -- the year after Snow had left the company for the Bush administration.
Stewart Baker, assistant secretary of policy at the Department of Homeland Security, said Dubai Ports World had a solid security record.
"We could not find anything concrete that led us to believe that the transaction ought to be stopped for national security reasons," Baker told Reuters.
LAWMAKERS WORRIED
A number of Republican and Democratic members of Congress urged the government to review the deal more carefully and scrutinize all security issues before Dubai Ports assumes management of U.S. ports.
The lawmakers voiced concern that the UAE served as a conduit for parts used for nuclear proliferation and that the local banking system had been abused by terrorist financiers.
U.S. officials have said money for the September 11 attacks was wired through the United Arab Emirates' banking system. Two of the September 11 hijackers were UAE citizens.
"Six of our largest commercial ports are being handed over to a country that is seeking to be Iran's free-trade partner and has been linked to the funding and planning of 9/11," said Rep. Mark Foley, a Florida Republican.
Foley and Schumer were among seven lawmakers who wrote to Snow expressing concern that the Bush administration was not giving the case appropriate attention and urging him to make the Committee on Foreign Investments undertake a full 45-day investigation.
"Our ports are our most vulnerable targets for terrorist attack," the letter said.
Homeland Security's Baker said that while these issues could not be ignored, "there's no country that hasn't had terrorists or other problems inside its borders and it would be very difficult to operate economically in this world if you said we're not going to do business with people who come from countries that have had transshipment or other issues."
A number of port analysts and port authority officials shrugged off the lawmakers' concerns.
"This does appear to be a very paranoid and knee-jerk reaction and lacks any real understanding of how ports operate on the ground," said Neil Davidson a ports analyst with Drewry Shipping Consultants in London.
"These are businessmen. They're not here to insert terrorists into the country. They're about making a profit on their investment," said Brooks Royster, executive director of the Port of Baltimore. "I don't have a concern in that regard."
U.S. seaports handle 2 billion tons of freight each year but only about 5 percent of containers entering the United States are examined on arrival.
(Additional reporting by Stefano Ambrogi in London and John Crawley in Washington)
source: http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-02-16T214339Z_01_N16375949_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-USA-DUBAI.xml&rpc=22
---------------
Democrats plan bill to block Dubai port deal
Fri Feb 17, 2006 2:21 PM ET

By Jeremy Pelofsky

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two U.S. Democratic senators said on Friday they would introduce legislation aimed at blocking Dubai Ports World from buying a company that operates several U.S. shipping ports because of security concerns.
Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Hillary Clinton of New York said they would offer a measure to ban companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from acquiring U.S. port operations.
"We wouldn't turn the border patrol or the customs service over to a foreign government, and we can't afford to turn our ports over to one either," Menendez said in a statement. The Senate Banking Committee also plans to hold a hearing on the issue later this month.
P&O, the company Dubai Ports World plans to buy for $6.8 billion, is already foreign-owned, by the British, but the concern is that the purchaser is backed by the United Arab Emirates government.
The UAE company would gain control over the management of major U.S. ports in New York and New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New Orleans and Miami and that has sparked national security concerns among lawmakers.
"I will be working with Senator Menendez to introduce legislation that will prohibit the sale of ports to foreign governments," Clinton said in a statement.
A Dubai Ports World spokesman said ports managed by the company met international security standards and that it had received all the necessary U.S. regulatory approvals.
"All Dubai Ports World ports are ISPS (International Ship and Port Facility Security) certified as are the P&O ports in the U.S.," the spokesman told Reuters in Dubai.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), a U.S. inter-agency panel that reviews security implications of foreign takeovers of strategic assets, already reviewed the transaction and did not object.
Despite that review, some Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. Congress urged the Bush administration to conduct a more rigorous review. They expressed fears that the UAE was used as a conduit for parts used for nuclear proliferation and that the local banking system had been abused by financiers with possible links to terrorist organizations.
The Senate Banking Committee plans to hold a hearing the week of February 27 on the P&O sale and the U.S. government review process, according to a panel spokesman.
"Clearly in our opinion there's some dysfunction in how the (CFIUS) process works in terms of transparency and whether national security concerns are being properly weighed in the decision," said committee spokesman Andrew Gray.
U.S. officials have said the UAE has been a solid and cooperative partner in the fight against terrorism, and have praised the UAE for steps to protect its booming financial sector against abuse by terrorism financiers.
Money for the September 11 attacks was wired through the UAE's banking system, according to U.S. officials. Two of the September 11 hijackers were UAE citizens.
U.S. seaports handle 2 billion tons of freight each year, but only about 5 percent of containers entering the United States are examined on arrival.
Similar concerns were raised when a China state-controlled oil company tried to acquire the U.S. oil company Unocal. After pressure from U.S. lawmakers, the foreign company eventually dropped its bid.
(Additional reporting by Caroline Drees in Washington and Dayan Candappa in Dubai)

source: http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-02-17T192108Z_01_N17197464_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-CONGRESS-PORTS.xml&rpc=22