My point here being pretty simple. Chuck Schumer misrepresented the port deal in his big, dramatic weekend news conferences on the docks. A British holding company that owns the rights to conduct lading operations was bought out by another holding company owned by the UAE, and operated primarily by high successful and reputable U.S. and European businessmen. The leasing of a franchise to operate “ports” - really a number of slips within much larger ports in this case - is comparable to the deal that airport authorities make with foreign air carriers to rent “gates” - departure gates and ticket selling / baggage handling sites. Security is in no way farmed out to UAE citizens; that is still in the hands of the Coast Guard and Customs & Border Protection, and local authorities. Homeland security staffed the issue, looked at the acquisition with Commerce, Defense, State, Justice and others, and found that while it could potentially raise concerns, it did not do so in actuality. This group of federal departments also weighed the importance of UAE in the War on Terror, noted UAE’s permitting the U.S. to station troops and to use port facilities in Dubai, along with noting UAE cooperation in the really important point-of-lading security programs being implemented to obviate the need for massive inspection programs in the States. They then blessed the deal, providing the company offered assurances of continued compliance with U.S. security requirements.
Senator Schumer, probably prompted by the dockworkers union lawsuit against the original owner of the port franchise (P&O) and by the opportunity to get in front of the camera, started beating on the populist drum. Hey, I can’t speak for anybody else, but I know that I’m worried about Arab countries, and realize there is a security risk attendant to doing business with them. But it’s not the hysterical matter that Schumer and xenophobes like Lou Dobbs make it out to be. You have to keep an open mind, judge the situation on the merits, and reach an independent judgment. This outright hysteria is shameful; it’s us letting our baser instinct run away with our mouths.
Pretty calm talk from a blog named Cold Fury.
[Update: Sorry, should have noted the emphasis above was mine. My bad. — Seneca]
7 comments:
david:
I don't know if it will be easily apporved or not but unless they want to build a wall around Detroit and start making all Arabs wear little arm bands with crescents on them they had better stop and listen to themselves.
Even if you check out comment threads most of the people who are against the deal are just doing their usual 'it ought to be a law to shoot a Muslim everyday' song and dance. It shames me to hear some of this stuff.
People say there are no moderate Muslims and none of them can be trusted. They want to know where the Moderates are...well maybe they are in the same place as the staff at papers like WaPo and the NYT who would not publish cartoons out of fear. Imagine living there. And this kind of attitude will only isolate those moderates even more.
david:
yes, I agree. Besides it would be a lot easier to bribe a longshoreman than it is to buy a whole big company.
Try to imagine if the Bush Administration had decided not to use the Dubai company for some technical reason and then it came to light that the Bush Administration had turned down using an Arab company. Now picture Chuckie Schumer. He'd be screaming "Islamophobia" to every camera crew he could find. But then the "honorable" Senator from New york never met a camera crew he didn't like.
Knuck,
You do realize the Hillary quote is satire, right?
Well anything is possible. But then again it is possible that some union leader will be blackmailed into looking the other way when a certain shipment comes in too.
How many Arabs already work for international companies? Do we have Arab American pilots working for airlines? Where does this kind of thing stop?
I think people are overlooking the fact that the Dubai people are not criminals, they have broken no laws, the only question here is one of race and ethnicity.
Heck, Terrye,
Just smuggle in anthrax as "normal" contraband: liquour, cigarettes, or dope. I'm sure lots of that stuff gets in via passengers and crew. Would you want to bet that none of the dock workers make arrangements with the crew of visiting ships?
Atomic weapons? If they aren't of the suitcase type they would need to go in something large. I would build them into a ship hull or put them in the stateroom of my doomsday yacht. One really has to catch those suckers in the making, I think.
Chuck,
Take five bulk carriers. Pump 100,000 gallons of diesel into their holds. Load two thousand tons of amonium nitrate on top of the diesel (stir gently - no smoking within twenty miles). Sail up the Mississippi to St. Louis or down the St Lawrence Seaway to Chicago or up the Delta to Sacramento or up into the Port of Houston or down the Ohio River. Light fuses - the explosions will be more than the equivalent of any suitcase nuke and no "freight terminal" AKA port facility will have to be involved.
Every one of our internal security measures have been farces since day one. They are there to calm public fears but the only way to stop terrorism is to take it right to source and remove the principal agents.
Do you recall in the very early days right after 9/11 reading about a Predator strike in Yemen that took out a Mercedes full of sheiks or princelings? I sure do - and I'll bet $100 that Predator strike had close to the value of the invasion of Afghanistan.
Post a Comment