1

Hi Joe,

I actually beat you to this story by about sixteen hours. Here's the post that I wrote:

The Bronx Blogger Disagrees with President Bush

I haven't heard anything to change my mind about the ports deal since I wrote my post, so I'm still in disagreement with you and President Bush.

By the way, I'm impressed with the way you can tell that one or two hundred million Americans are foolish xenophobes -- tell me, is it a great burden to live a life of such lonely rectitude and intelligence, above the mewlings of the deluded crowds? :)

I'm sure, for example, that every longshoreman in the five relevant ports stands unanimously four-square behind the DP World takeover of the P&O contract, since each of them can answer all the questions on your quiz (except possibly the bonus map question). Any longshoreman who harbors even the slightest doubt about the deal must just be laboring under some kind of misunderstanding, right? There's really no other plausible explanation.

2

Matthew I haven't heard anything to change my mind about the ports deal since I wrote my post, so I'm still in disagreement with you and President Bush.

Since it would alleviate your concerns, would you be in favor of a hiring practice that limits the number of Arabs or Muslims working as longshoremen?

3

I don't think Arab or Muslim longshoremen pose any problem. And if they did pose a problem, I don't think racial/religious profiling would be appropriate or helpful.

I have come across a compromise that would seem to alleviate many of the security concerns. It was proposed by a blogger named Dafyyd at a blog called "Big Lizards".

Here's the post in which he outlines the compromise solution:

UAE and American Ports: a Modest Proposal

Basically, he says that DP World should be asked to sub-contract out the day-to-day port operations to a wholly American-run subsidiary. DP World would still be the owner of the contract and extract most of the profit, but the most egregious security concerns would no longer be operative.

4

Joe

Interesting post ont he possibilities for what used to be called mob-rule or the madness of crowds. The [potential] folly of crowds is a usefully tactful way to put it.

The key question here is the issue not of right to opinion, but responsibility for the soundness of one's opinion. On that Aristotle long ago put it well, in his The Rhetoric:

Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker [ethos]; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind [pathos]; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself [logos]. Persuasion is achieved by the speaker's personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible . . . Secondly, persuasion may come through the hearers, when the speech stirs their emotions. Our judgements when we are pleased and friendly are not the same as when we are pained and hostile . . . Thirdly, persuasion is effected through the speech itself when we have proved a truth or an apparent truth by means of the persuasive arguments suitable to the case in question . . . .

Here, I look on in a context where there is a proposal for another Dubai corporation, World Empire [what an implication, given the issue of Jihad!] to found an offshore medical school.

Security IS a major issue, and the question is how it can best be managed.

Grace open our eyes

Gordon

5

Wait a second; I have a few questions for you:

1. Why is it in the interests of the United States to be outsourcing port security to the UAE?

2. Dubai Ports is owned by...whom?

3. Is Dubai Ports a union shop?

4. What was the quid pro quo involved?

When you can answer those questions, get back to me.

Heck, get Hewitt to answer them, but of course that would ruin his position as shill for the Bush folks.

6

1. Why is it in the interests of the United States to be outsourcing port security to the UAE?

Another good question is why would it be in the interests of the US to outsource national defense and foreign policy to the UN or the UN Security Council? Many on the left (John Kerry?) would have no problem with that scenario, so why the sudden concern about the UAE managing the loading and unloading of cargo at a few ports? Note, Dubai Ports does not do the actual loading and unloading, their role will be the hiring of longshoremen to do the actual work. A quick look at their website does not list providing security as one of the services they offer, though I do imagine they have a role in providing security for their own equipment and facilities. Port security will still be handled by the US Coast Guard, Customs Service, Homeland Security, and Jack Bauer (when Jack is knocked out or has to fake his own death, Chuck Norris takes over).

2. Dubai Ports is owned by...whom?

A bunch of dirty Ay-rabs, otherwise known as the government of the United Arab Emirates. It should be noted that the UAE is helping to provide logistics support to our troops fighting in the War on Terror, support that we should probably be greatful for, especially since it's likely to put them on Al Queda's hit list too.

3. Is Dubai Ports a union shop?

I doubt it, but I'm not sure that is relevent. In the case of Maryland, state law mandates that the ILA (International Longshoreman's Association) perform all work on publically owned docks. I think New York/New Jersey and Philedelphia work the same way, but am less certain about Miami and New Orleans.

4. What was the quid pro quo involved?

It there is any, it could be the fact that the UAE is helping to provide logistics support for our troops fighting the War on Terror and thereby exposing themselves to attack from Al Queda for helping the Great Satan.

7

I think you are over-simplifying this one.

(1) To many, the fact that DPW will oversee longshoremen and not security per se still sounds like a possible security risk. How about putting it this way: company XYZ will be in charge of the majority of baggage handling on US flights. That sounds like company XYZ will be involved in activities that will have a lot to do with the security of flights in the United States.

(2) This is not necessarily xenophobic. I can trust the general good intentions of the government of the UAE and the management of the DPW and still be concerned. One could legitimately argue that both are more likely to be unknowingly infiltrated by Islamist terrorists than another government or corporation. Is that concern xenophobia? I don't think so.

(3) This is only a guess, but I think the extraordinary opposition this is getting in the country has, in part, to do with distrust of the administration just as much as it has to do with any potential xenophobia. Here's where we may indeed be subject to the foolishness of crowds, but it is of a different sort than you're positing. In my opinion, this administration has shown an extraordinary level of cronyism and everyone pretty much knows it in their gut. Many many people (including very many conservatives) do not trust this administration's instincts or motives when it comes to large business deals. When one hears of a deal this large which intuitively seems a security risk (reasons given above) and it is "blessed" by this administration (which otherwise can be counted on to talk about everything with a security angle), the question comes (quickly): What private ties and interests might be influencing the administration on this one? Now I have no idea if there are any such ties. But the administration's past behavior makes the question (or suspicion) a legitimate one. I am not saying that the administration would intentionally do anything to compromise port security. But the administration might be counted on to be blind to its own interests in the matter: it's been sadly reliable on this in the past. Now, is suspicion of the administration on this a good basis for action? Probably not. But one has to point out that suspicion of the administration has some basis and the initial intuition is justified. Time will tell if the administration's rationale for approving the deal holds up.

8

If there is another attack on U.S. soil, racial profiling should be an option.

Nice job, Mumom, you agree with Hugh Hewitt's position on this issue but still manage to destroy your credibility.

9

Actually the Dafyyd proposal is a much more acceptable alternative. That should have been the model from the beginning.

Yes, the Coast Guard is still in charge of security, but DPW would be included in security briefings. That makes it easier for terrorists to learn vulnerabilities.

10

I don't think Arab or Muslim longshoremen pose any problem. And if they did pose a problem, I don't think racial/religious profiling would be appropriate or helpful.

Matthew--If Arab or Muslim longshoreman loading/unloading cargo at US ports doesn't concern you, why would an Arab/Muslim company hiring US Longshoreman to load/unload cargo at US ports?

11

Joe,

No time for a long post right now so just a few quick points.

1) Ive tried to convince Hugh that he is wrong but he's pretty sure on this one that he's right.

2) You forgot CBP. I'm a Customs and Border Protection Officer and along with my pals in the Coast Guard, we defend our ports.

That's about it, keep up the good work Joe!

12

since we are outsourcing, let's put some afganis to work. espcially some of poorer ones who live in caves.

13

I think David's post is highly insightful. I too suspect that this issue is probably about nothing. Even if an American company is hiring longshoremen to unload ships there's nothing preventing an Arab ship run by terrorists from docking at an American port. If you know about the shipping world you'll know its made up of a lot of companies that exist only on paper and a lot of people who are somewhat on societies borderlines.

14

DPW would be included in security briefings. That makes it easier for terrorists to learn vulnerabilities.

Chris--You are assuming that DPW is either a direct or indirect terrorist sponsor. What evidence (other than national origin) do you have of this? Again I point out, the UAE is providing logistics and intelligence support to our troops in the Middle East, this seems like it a much bigger securtiy risk than who hires longshoremen to load/unload cargo. If DOD was concerned about Dubai Ports facilitating terrorism in US ports, wouldn't they also be concerned with them helping to provide support to US troops? I haven't seen any evidence that this is the case, especially since DOD is on the committee that approved the sale.

15

You are assuming that DPW is either a direct or indirect terrorist sponsor.

I don't see Buddhists or Hindus trying to kill us. It is one religious group and that is Muslims. That's not to say that all are, but there is a significant group that is trying to. Therefore, putting a Muslim owned company in a position that allows them greater access to port security measures is a risk. How does the UAE, the owner of the company, planning on screening its employees for jihadist sympathies?

16

Joe - Appreciate your blog as always and will politely disagree with you on your premise here simply because I doubt the Great American Public (GAP) can be scooped up and characterized so easily. Whether you think they are fools or not - they still run the show around here (last I knew). I am reminded of an old Human Resources colleague that told me "perception is reality - learn to deal with that fact, and you'll not go wrong with your employees." [or, hire an incredible PR team]

Perception (and much of reality) is that we got nailed and nailed hard by Arab Muslims who originated from UAE and other Arab countries - not Asians, Caucasians, Native Americans or Latinos. Perception is also what is getting legislators in a lot of hot water now. I have no idea if Tom Delay did anything illegal, but the perception is that he pushes the envelope too far.

I voted for Bush and probably would do so again, but he and his admin are absolutely out to lunch on this one. Even if they have checked and re-checked, then checked again, this is very bad timing to place sensitive operations in the hands of those *perceived* to be close to our mortal enemy. If only 7% of cargo is being looked at by our security now, and ops are done by brits, then how comfortable does it make Joe American to know that 7% of cargo is still the norm, but ops are now run by a company that bows to Allah five times daily?

17

Congressional Republicans who are up for reelection this year can make themselves look better by opposing Bush, whose approval has been topping at 40. Democrats have a chance to look tough on security. This whole thing is based on political posturing and misinformation (because most people don't know what port operators do). Port operators don't own our ports and they're not in charge of security. They move cargo. Actually, American union guys move the cargo.

18

Hugh is right at least in this: the Bush administration needs to learn from this issue. I don't believe the President owes a detailed apologetic for every little decision, but there are some decisions that instinctively should raise red flags about a "sniff test" that has to be passed in the public forum. This administration understands military preemption but not message preemption, and that causes problems in a world where soft power is as important as hard power. Maintaining public support, at home and abroad, is nearly as important as making the right decision in the first place, and this team's inability to communicate effectively, here or overseas, is hampering its effectiveness. When even your natural allies are wondering "what the heck?" you should recognize you have credibility issues and make appropriate adjustments. That's going to require more energy and commitment of resources than the occasional press event (sans questions from the press).

19

Here's some excellent background on the situation.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8587
well supported, too.

Joe's right on this one(and so is Justin). Most people don't have a clue as to how the import/export process works.

20

What Joe, Mike (and Justin too) are not acknowledging here is that the "clueless" public runs the show. Period. End of story.

The admin is really the clueless one in this case because they did not properly evangelize this and see it for the mushrooming heartland issue that it is. Saying Bush didn't know about it was the next *huge* blunder. Whether these UAE guys do security or not, simply is not the issue here.

Our ports, whether big or small, are viewed as the "soft underbelly" and the gateway of America. To set up a deal like this and not be prepared for the firestorm of "clueless" public opinion is unbelievable to me. In the bigger picture, the Bush admin must simply topple its Queen on this one.

21

Pete,
You're right about the public and about Bush being clueless. He (or someone who really understands this) would do well to explain this in detail to the public. It's a major issue that won't go away. I think Bush is going to lose out on this one.

22

Good post. I've been a Customs Inspector for 14 years, most of it at a seaport dealing with vessel agents, freight forwarders, ILA workers,etc. It seems the volume has been turned up by the press and a few Congressmen for political reasons. The average American does not realize how much of the United States is owned by foreign interests. Dubai Ports already owns CSX Railroad based in Jacksonville. According to the people I deal with on a daily basis, Arab ownership is not an issue and will not affect port security.

23

Concerning the issue of racial profiling.

I have nothing against Arabs or the Islam religion as a whole. It is the radicals and extremists among them, and their tendency to "blend in" with even the most innoculous organizations without notice that concerns me.

And I want the Bush administration to be absolutely, positively sure that has not happened in DPW before going ahead with the port deal.

I originally was dead-set against the deal but have decided to trust that Bush wouldn't go anywhere near it if he thought it posed a threat to America's security.

24

Here is such a scenario for you. One of many ways that a patient jihadi could get us through this deal.

25

I don't see Buddhists or Hindus trying to kill us. It is one religious group and that is Muslims. That's not to say that all are, but there is a significant group that is trying to. Therefore, putting a Muslim owned company in a position that allows them greater access to port security measures is a risk.

You apparently don't know that there are 2 countries in the Middle East, without who we would probably not be able to support our troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan, one is Kuwait and the other is the UAE. UAE is sticking their neck out by providing us logistics and intelligence support. The port in Dubai supports more USN ships than any port outside the US. Not only that, they actually have troops on the ground in Iraq as part of coalition forces. What you are saying is if you put yourself at risk by helping us fight the War on Terror, we are going to repay you by "bitch slapping" you in a very public and humiliating way. Do you really think the way to win the War on Terror and spread freedom and democracy in the Middle East is to alienate the countries actively supporting our efforts? I understand mumon's opposition; what better way to ensure that the War on Terror is unwinnable than by alienating all Muslims, but I don't understand yours.

How does the UAE, the owner of the company, planning on screening its employees for jihadist sympathies?

How did the previous company? There are a lot of Muslims in Great Britain, do you think P&O had a religious test for employment? Does the ILA?

26

There are a lot of supporters of the War on Terror (especially in Iraq and Afghanistan) who seem to think that we can win this war without the support of Muslim countries, we can't. How does this episode encourage any other Muslim countries to side with us against their religious extremists if this is how we are going to treat people who have put themselves at risk to help us? The help UAE is giving us in fighting the war is important, it is not window dressing. We would be very hard-pressed to support our troops without their help. We can't afford to treat our friends this way or we will find that we don't have any.

27

I think this issue is less about the deal itself than it is about distrust of the Bush administration by just about everyone except maybe the Kool-Aid drinkers like Christian Pundits. I have heard more than a few stories that Port Security is a real problem. Only a fraction of incoming containers are checked and considering the huge volumn it would be very expensive to do massive checks.

On the other hand we are spending hundreds of billions on 'Homeland Security' and for our money we have learned that the gov't will not act with competence when a major US city is destroyed so it's little surprise that many people's instincts are to say "Prove to me this deal is safe" rather than "Prove to me this deal is unsafe". The Bush administration, in other words, squandered its default benefit of the doubt a long time ago.

28

How does the UAE, the owner of the company, planning on screening its employees for jihadist sympathies?

Interestingly few of the 9/11 hijackers had known jihadist sympathies. On paper most of them appeared to be Westernized foreigners, even non-religious (there was the well publicized report of them laughing it up in a strip bar before 9/11 plus there was never any reports of them attending any religious service anywhere in the US...you'd more likely bump into them at a gym than a Mosque).

29

I think this issue is less about the deal itself than it is about distrust of the Bush administration by just about everyone except maybe the Kool-Aid drinkers like Christian Pundits.

I think it is less about the deal, than it is a way for politicians to score cheap points during an election year. Republicans get to distance themselves from a relatively unpopular president and Democrats get to look tough on national security. This reminds of the accusation that CEO's are only concerned about short-term profits to make their stock look good and not about the long-term viability of the company. Politicians (especially in the Congress) are worried about scaring up a few votes for the next election and not about long-term national security interests.

30

Republicans also get a chance to show independence from the President and maybe get a little good press, ala McCain.

31

I think there are at least two main issues to consider.

First, was there an adequate review process for awarding the contract to the UAE company? Based on the fact that governors and senators (representing both parties) from several states were not aware, and that the President himself was not aware until after the contract was signed, I conclude that there was not an adequate process for reviewing and communicating this. At the very least, don't you think that the elected officials representing the affected states should have been advised before the deal was done?

Second, is it appropriate to have a company owned by the UAE managing our ports? I believe the answer is NO, but at the very least, there should be a much more thorough investigation of this given the huge security issues involved. There are a number of reasons why I think this needs to be thought through some more.

First, I completely reject the argument that security will not change; that security and port management are separate. Suppose Homeland Security gets a credible threat related to the port of NY. I assume they would have to involve the management company. How could they not be part of the potential response to the threat? Wouldn't they be involved in security briefings, which means we would potentially be giving sensitive security information to a company owned by a foreign government. Port security and port management have to be integrated.

Second, I also reject the argument that because there are terrorists in Britain who are British citizens, and a British company previously had the port job, that this means it is OK to have a UAE company manage the ports, and to exclude them would be racist. This is apples and oranges. The British company is a private company; the UAE company is a state owned company. That is a major difference. Also, it is a fact that virtually every terrorist who has attacked the U.S., or U.S. properties, has been an Islamic male from the Middle East. If a company that presumably employs some Islamic males from the Middle East manages our ports, it makes it much easier for terrorists to infiltrate our country. For example, wouldn't the employees have work visas that would allow them to move freely around the country?

Third, there are enough questions about the UAE's support of terrorists we should be looking very carefully at this. Remember, two of the 9/11 hijackers were from UAE. Isn't is possible that other citizens of that country share the same hatred of the US? Also, the UAE was, I believe, the last country in the world to withdraw recognition of the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. I believe it was several weeks after 9/11 before they did it. In addition:

– The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.

– According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.

– After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.

- I believe the 9/11 commission report indicates that a C-130 traced to UAE re-fueled at an OBL training camp in Afghanistan in 1999.

32

The British company is a private company; the UAE company is a state owned company. That is a major difference. Also, it is a fact that virtually every terrorist who has attacked the U.S., or U.S. properties, has been an Islamic male from the Middle East.

I don't see the difference between a private and state owned company. In some ways private owned companies carry their own problems. Since they belong to their owners it is difficult to assign responsibility. If a privately owned British company helps smuggle in a terrorist do we blame the UK? On the other hand if a state owned company did so wouldn't we look first to the gov't of that nation?

As an aside, as for 'every major terrorist' I notice you forgot about Tim McVeigh.

33

Boonton,

I did say "virtually" ;-)But your point is valid that not all terrorist threats are from the Middle East.

The difference between private and state-owned is very significant. A private company is accountable to shareholders. A state-owned company is accountable to its government owner. It has a direct connection to its government.

I made this point because the Wall St. Journal had said, in an opinion piece:
---
Yes, some of the 9/11 hijackers were UAE citizens. But then the London subway bombings last year were perpetrated by citizens of Britain, home to the company (P&O) that currently manages the ports that Dubai Ports World would take over. Which tells us ... : First, this work is already being outsourced to "a foreign-based company"; second, discriminating against a Mideast company offers no security guarantees because attacks are sometimes homegrown; ...
---
For a business newspaper to omit the fact that the British company is privately owned versus state ownership of the UAE company is inexcusable.

Assigning blame for smuggling in terrorists is not the issue. At that point, it is too late.

34

For the sake of argument, let's accept the belief that the UAE is a terrorist threat, after all they are a bunch of Ay-rabs. You also have to accept the fact that the UAE is a major regional ally in the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They provide direct military support in Iraq, they also provide logistics support to our soldiers and sailors. They allow us to base our ships supporting the effort at Dubai; according to GEN Tommy Franks (in an interview with Tony Snow), the largest US Navy base outside the US is in Dubai. They provide intelligence support and have even turned over members of Al Queda to us. In short, they are an important ally in the WOT and it would be difficult to conduct operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan without their active support. Whatever their actions in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, they have certainly been on board since then. Unless you are of the opinion that we can win the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without allies, I don't see how we can pull out of this deal without alienating an important ally and giving a clear demonstration to other countries in the region that it doesn't pay to be a friend of the US. Can we really afford to create that impression? Being a friend requires taking risk, the UAE has exposed themselves by helping us in the WOT, should we respond by giving them a slap in the face?

35

I'm starting to wonder if I should change my "nom de cyber" to "uaeengr."

36

The difference between private and state-owned is very significant. A private company is accountable to shareholders. A state-owned company is accountable to its government owner. It has a direct connection to its government.

First some privately owned companies are not public. All their shares are held by either one person or family or a small group of owners.

Second while a publically traded corporation is accountable to its shareholders this doesn't help us much security wise. 'Insiders' can still divert resources to the aid of a terrorist just as insiders often use company resources for personal gain. Yea shareholders are probably not going to let Osama Bin Laden become CEO of a publically traded company but again that's not really necessary.

Third, you missed my point about accountability. If a company is gov't owned & it helps a terrorist then it will look like that gov't is helping a terrorist. The last thing a gov't would want to seem like doing. That's a pretty potent incentive for a gov't to police their companies.

37

A correction on what someone else wrote about CSX. According to the Wall St. Journal DP World acquired the global port facilities of CSX Corp. of Jacksonville, Fla., which didn't include any U.S. ports.

I think the jury is still out on Dubai, and that is why I think a much more thorough investigation needs to be done. Consider this, from today's WSJ
---
Dubai is believed to have been one of the most important conduits for Iran's nuclear technology acquisition program, according to U.S. court cases and interviews with experts in the field. The Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, a nongovernment advocacy group, last year published a list of 38 weapons-related smuggling cases since 1982 in which the goods moved through Dubai and the other islands that constitute the United Arab Emirates. Most of the illicit goods crossing Dubai go through its ports.

More generally, according to sanctions experts and numerous U.S. court and regulatory cases, Iran uses Dubai to evade U.S. economic sanctions on Iran and other Middle Eastern countries. The UAE doesn't recognize those sanctions.

Iranian front companies in Dubai routinely obtain prohibited U.S. goods, federal court records show. In one undercover investigation by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency that resulted in a November 2005 guilty plea in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the representative of an Iranian front company was caught on tape assuring an undercover agent posing as a businessman not to worry about sanctions regulations.

"You are going to export to Dubai, which does not have any regulations. It's a free, uh, country for importing, exporting," said Khalid Mahmood, according to his guilty plea. Asked if the equipment would then be shipped to Iran, Mr. Mahmood replied, "Once it comes here, we'll ship it anywhere in the world, no problem."

Similarly, in 2003, UAE officials refused a U.S. request to intercept a shipment of nuclear technology bound for South Africa by a smuggler named Asher Karni, according to University of Georgia sanctions expert Scott Jones, who works with U.S. agencies on proliferation issues. Mr. Karni was convicted of violating sanctions against weapons of mass destruction last year in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The UAE also was believed to be a nexus for Pakistan's nuclear program and hosted at least two front companies that forwarded material to Islamabad.

---
ucfengr said: I don't see how we can pull out of this deal without alienating an important ally and giving a clear demonstration to other countries in the region that it doesn't pay to be a friend of the US.

But that is precisely the first point I made above -- there was not an adequate review process before the deal was signed. It is not acceptable to say that we can't pull out now because it would hurt the war on terror. We should not have signed the deal in the first place without a full investigation and a thorough debate on this. Why is the debate being held after the deal was signed?

38

But that is precisely the first point I made above -- there was not an adequate review process before the deal was signed. It is not acceptable to say that we can't pull out now because it would hurt the war on terror. We should not have signed the deal in the first place without a full investigation and a thorough debate on this. Why is the debate being held after the deal was signed?

But what is your evidence that the review process wasn't adequate, that Chuck Schumer and Bob Erlich weren't consulted? Does the Committee routinely consult these people on the several dozen to several hundred of these cases they handle every year? I doubt it. If there were a problem wouldn't DOD, State, Commerce, Justice, (home of the FBI) or Homeland Defense have raised an objection? Since the COFI vote was unanimous, I imagine any objections they had must have been pretty minor (especially since they were handled pretty far below the Secretary level) and were adequately addressed.

So now these folks would put us in the position of telling an important ally in the War on Terror, that we don't trust you. What a great way to encourage other countries to ally with us.

39

So now these folks would put us in the position of telling an important ally in the War on Terror, that we don't trust you. What a great way to encourage other countries to ally with us.

As rdsmith3 pointed out above, it is questionable how trustworthy of an ally they are. Also, just because someone is an ally doesn't mean you trust them with everything.

The process, by law, requires a 45 day review when the purchasing organization is a gov't or an organization operating on behalf of a gov't.

You apparently don't know that there are 2 countries in the Middle East, without who we would probably not be able to support our troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan, one is Kuwait and the other is the UAE.

Since my brother-in-law is in the Air Force and just returned from the UAE, I have a pretty good appreciation for the way things work over there.

What you are saying is if you put yourself at risk by helping us fight the War on Terror, we are going to repay you by "bitch slapping" you in a very public and humiliating way.

The only reason this is publicly humiliating is because the administration has handled this in an incompetent and tone-deaf manner. Second, I believe a lot of Americans would prefer that all operations at U.S. ports are handled by U.S. companies. As I stated earlier, Dafyyd's proposal would probably be acceptable.

Do you really think the way to win the War on Terror and spread freedom and democracy in the Middle East is to alienate the countries actively supporting our efforts?

First, winning a war does not mean you open yourself up more to your enemies. A significant group of muslims are our enemy. When you can give me a reasonable way of determining which are the good muslims and which are the enemy muslims, then we can allow them more access to our country. Second, the freedom and democracy goal is a social engineering goal which we shouldn't be undertaking. It's not our role to bring freedom to anyone and our gov't should be more concerned about protecting it's own citizens.

For the sake of argument, let's accept the belief that the UAE is a terrorist threat, after all they are a bunch of Ay-rabs.

That sentence right there indicates an attempt to smear opponents as some sort of racists.

Simply put, just because someone is an ally doesn't mean they are a friend. Countries choose allies for complex reasons. Sometimes your current ally is your next enemy.

40

What is this blather about "ally in the War on Terror?"

Do you mean the campaign to not get Osama bin Laden?

Do you mean the campaign to stomp on Iraq because Saddam Hussein was no longer useful to American's demands for hegemony over oil, from which even Bill O'Reilly now says we should exit??

By now, anybody who looks around can see that the UAE played footsie with the Taliban, that there was no oversight in this deal, and even Bush has said, "This deal wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America."

Nobody has yet said why this is a good thing for the United States of America, and nobody's told us what the actual quid pro quo was, although there are glimmers of information that evidently compliance with the law wasn't on the short list of things...

That people still, to this day, think of the Bush regime as anything other than a bunch of kleptocrats is beyond my comprehension.

41

流量积算仪
红外线测温
无纸记录仪

42

Boontoon I live near the Tampa port, which will be one of those included in the UAE deal. So you don't have to tell me that Port-Security is a problem, I hear it on an almost daily basis on the local news.

And just for the record, my beverage of choice is Budweiser, not Kool-Aid.

43

Mumon wrote;

"This deal wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America."

This originated at Talking Points Memo and there is no link to an original source.

44

Joe Carter posted:

...the solution would simply be to institute a program of racial and/or religious profiling....We can simply say that if you are a young, male, Arab, Muslim, that you cannot get a job as a longshoreman.

The issue is not race, it is religion. That you persist in making this demonstrably false assertion is curious.

Resorting to such racial profiling, however, would signal to the world that Americans are—much like the people who were outraged over the Danish cartoons--irrational xenophobes who allow their emotions to replace their reason.

You just insulted 1.2 billion Muslims. What are you, some kind of Islamophobe? Or do you consider it rational to characterize those offended at an insult to their beloved prophet as "irrational xenophobes"?

Protesters (in Europe!) carried signs threatening beheadings and mass extermination against those who insult Islam. They've burned, tortured, and slaughtered around the world in reaction to the affront. To equate Americans opposed to giving to co-religionists of those who threaten to kill us access to our ports with those who threaten to kill us is immoral.

In light of Islam's "sacred" commands for violence against the Infidel (and its 1400 year history of actually carrying out those commands), there is nothing irrational about doubting the trustworthiness of those who are at least nominally affiliated with the god who requires such violence. Neither must one have an irrational fear of the "other" to prefer the fox not be given access to the henhouse.

With your mischaracterizations of those who prefer Liberty over beheading, it might be wise to pause for a moment and evaluate whose cause you're actually supporting.

Instead, we prefer to express our prejudice indirectly, by profiling a company based on the country of origin. (The fact that this country happens to be one of our stronger allies in the GWOT doesn’t seem to matter.) It still makes us look foolish, but at least we can be foolish as a crowd.

The fact that the UAE is a country of adherents to a religion whose god requires subduing and killing people like us apparently doesn't matter to you.

What is truly foolish is to trust in the decency of those who believe in a god that commands his people to "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5) and whose "ideal" man stated, "War is deceit" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268).

45

All:

Just to toss in another point:

Your nation has a massive smuggling problem with ton-lots of drugs. Much of that is from Latin America and the Caribbean, where there is an increasing influence of muslim radicals, e.g. El Shukrijumah who allegedly is trying to get a nuke into the US for obvious reasons.

I think your port and border security problems plainly start a long way before you get to ports being owned by an oil-righ sheik[-dom] who is the head of state of an allied country in the GWOT. [BTW, as far back as the Barbary Coast wars, US forvces collaborated with muslim forces in fighting other muslim forces.]

On the hue and cry, therefore, I think Joe's point on how mass opinion is formed is relevant:

Surowiecki outlines four elements required to form a “wise crowd”:

* Diversity of opinion: Each person should have private information even if it's just an eccentric interpretation of the known facts.

* Independence: People's opinions aren't determined by the opinions of those around them.

* Decentralization: People are able to specialize and draw on local knowledge.

* Aggregation: Some mechanism exists for turning private judgments into a collective decision.

On this controversy, most people are not only unaware of the known facts, but are confused about what they think is relevant information. Too much emphasis, for example, is being put on the geographic location of Dubai Ports World while ignoring the task the company will be performing (stevedoring) and how it is actually carried out.

Surowiecki also claims that when the members of the crowd are too conscious of the opinions of others they begin to emulate each other and conform rather than think differently. He asserts that when the decision making environment is too centralized, too divided, or too imitative, the benefits of individual judgments and private information are lost and that the crowd will not be more “wise” than the experts.

I think, further, that this problem is a very widespread one, on a whole lot of topics.

Grazce, open our eyes

Gordon

46

As rdsmith3 pointed out above, it is questionable how trustworthy of an ally they are. Also, just because someone is an ally doesn't mean you trust them with everything.

We aren't trusting them with everything, just responsibility for hiring people to load and unload cargo at some of our ports, which they already handle at ports around the world. Here are some of the other things we do trust them with, our most advanced F-16 fighters (more advanced than our own AF has), the largest US Navy base outside the US (in Dubai, UAE), reponsibility for feeding and supplying our troops (a large portion of which flow through the Port in Dubai), and the training of Iraqi forces. They also have troops operating with coalition forces in Iraq.

The process, by law, requires a 45 day review when the purchasing organization is a gov't or an organization operating on behalf of a gov't.

The Dubai Ports bid for P&O was accepted in November 2005, 4 months ago, or 120 days for the mathematically challenged.

Since my brother-in-law is in the Air Force and just returned from the UAE, I have a pretty good appreciation for the way things work over there.

I provide support to the Kuwait Ministry of Defense for DOD, so I know how things work over there as well, probably better than you bro-in-law (unless he has birds or stars on his collar).

The only reason this is publicly humiliating is because the administration has handled this in an incompetent and tone-deaf manner. Second, I believe a lot of Americans would prefer that all operations at U.S. ports are handled by U.S. companies. As I stated earlier, Dafyyd's proposal would probably be acceptable.

The reason this is humiliating is because members of Congress, who should know better are trying to score some cheap points against the President to the detriment of national security. Regarding the administration's handling, it was probably an easy mistake to make. They probably assumed (accurately in most cases) that members of Congress knew how important an ally UAE is to our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and so would pass up the oportunity to score some cheap points by playing on anti-Arab, anti-Muslim sentiment. Bush's mistake was in overestimating Congress's committment to national security over short term political gain. As to Dafydd's proposal, there are no US companies that perform this work and haven't been for some time. Perhaps you are suggesting that Bush set up one of his cronies in business. It might be worth it only because it would cause mumon's head to sputter and smoke.

First, winning a war does not mean you open yourself up more to your enemies. A significant group of muslims are our enemy. When you can give me a reasonable way of determining which are the good muslims and which are the enemy muslims, then we can allow them more access to our country.

I don't know how much more open we could be, they are supply and support (through the port in Dubai) our troops in the region. The reaction to this really reminds me of our rounding up Japanese citizens in the wake of Pearl Harbor. The assumption that all Muslims are untrustworthy is really going to damage our standing in the region and world.

Second, the freedom and democracy goal is a social engineering goal which we shouldn't be undertaking. It's not our role to bring freedom to anyone and our gov't should be more concerned about protecting it's own citizens.

If that's the case, then we probably shouldn't be in the region at all. Maybe you should be arguing that we withdraw.

That sentence right there indicates an attempt to smear opponents as some sort of racists.

To a large extent, I think anti-Arab, anti-Muslim sentiment is driving this. I here very little mention about how important an ally UAE is in the War on Terror, only that 2 of the 19 were citizens.

47

For whatever it's worth I had the answers to the questions.

I'm not an Islamophobe.

I've been a supporter of the Bush doctrine from the beginning, I still am.

However, this incident has bothered me, not because of who the ports are being sold to, but because of the way in which the administration is handling it. It's clear to me there is a lack of communication and cohernece in what we're doing. It calls into question our competence at the highest levels of government.

I'm not sure whether it's second term fatigue, but it just looks to me like the President is totally disengaged. It couldn't be happening at a worse time since it appears to me that the wheels are coming off the wagon. We need leadership and I don;t think we're getting it.

48

Racial profiling works when a signfiicant number of the racial group belongs to the target you are trying to capture. to use a less explosive example, let's just consider marketing. Many young Afrian-Americans listen to rap and hip-hop. Hence if I were promoting a line of clothes branded by a notable hip-hop star I would use racial profiling (i.e. buying ads on radio stations with a high Afrian-American demographic). This works because there is a huge overlap between hip-hop fans and young Afrian Americans (huge being, say at least 10-20%). So I reach 100 young Afrian Americans I get at least 10-20 hip-hoppers.

But with terrorism you're not looking at anywhere near these numbers. You're looking at maybe 1 in a million (NO, simply finding people who don't like Israel or don't like the US doesn't count...you're looking for people ACTIVELY engaged in planning to attack the US). Racial profiling here would fail and in fact be highly likely to backfire (Jose Pedia, for example, would elude any racial profile. He is a very rare hispanic convert to Islam & an even rarer hispanic who journeyed to Afghanistan for 'terrorism training').

49

Through there actions, countries like UAE and Kuwait have tied themselves to the US in a very significant way. If we pull out or lose the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they are pretty well hosed. You think Iran is going to admire their courage? If we can't call these countries friends, then we really have no friends in the region.

50

We aren't trusting them with everything,...

You continue to miss the point that just because they are an ally doesn't mean we should automatically trust them with a portion of our ports. I thought I made that point pretty clear.

I provide support...

You insinuated that I had no idea of what I was talking about. I was simply stating that I do have some knowledge. I'm was not attempting to claim some all-knowing understanding.

The Dubai Ports bid for P&O was accepted in November 2005,...

It's not when the bid is accepted, it's when the review process starts.

I don't know how much more open we could be, they are supply and support (through the port in Dubai) our troops in the region.

Supporting troops on there territory is understandable. That's different from them having greater access to our ports.

The assumption that all Muslims are untrustworthy is really going to damage our standing in the region and world.

Based on past actions and words, Muslims deserve a lot more scrutiny than let's say Buddhists.

If that's the case, then we probably shouldn't be in the region at all. Maybe you should be arguing that we withdraw.

Bingo. I was all for removing Saddam and taking out the Taliban. Once that was done, we should have left. Getting mixed up in Muslim politics is a no-win situation.

Bush's mistake was in overestimating Congress's committment to national security over short term political gain. As to Dafydd's proposal, there are no US companies that perform this work and haven't been for some time.

All the administration has to do is explain how this doesn't compromise our security. They couldn't at recent hearings and Congress is rightly concerned. And I'm sure some American companies might like the opportunity to expand into a new business.

To a large extent, I think anti-Arab, anti-Muslim sentiment is driving this. I here very little mention about how important an ally UAE is in the War on Terror, only that 2 of the 19 were citizens.

I'm sure it plays a part and in all honesty I don't blame people anymore. Most Americans would probably prefer a "you stay in your part of the world, and we'll stay in ours" strategy. Of course, one gets called a facist for saying such things. As someone wrote over at NRO, people are reaching the "to hell with them" stage. That doesn't mean we should ignore obligations we agreed to with the UAE. However, it doesn't mean they are necessarily our friends or that they may have motives that our the opposite of ours in other areas.

Boonton, being passively supportive can be just as dangerous as actively supportive since it provides the active jihadists pockets where they can move freely. Your estimate of only 1,200-1,400 jihadists seems pretty low. Finally, this isn't about race, it's about a mainline Islamic religious belief that sees infidels as the enemy.

51

Amillenialist,

In light of Islam's "sacred" commands for violence against the Infidel (and its 1400 year history of actually carrying out those commands), there is nothing irrational about doubting the trustworthiness of those who are at least nominally affiliated with the god who requires such violence.

So should we doubt the trustworthiness of devout Muslims who serve in the U.S. Armed Forces?

52

You continue to miss the point that just because they are an ally doesn't mean we should automatically trust them with a portion of our ports. I thought I made that point pretty clear.

And you continue to miss the point that not only are they an ally, they are among the most important allies in the War on Terror. We could win this war without Great Britain, but not without UAE and Kuwait. They have provided unprecedented access to their ports and airspace to provide support to our operations in the both Afghanistan and Iraq. Since you are so concerned, do you think we should let them provide support to our USN ships? Our troops? Should we refuse their military support in Iraq? Should we let their airplanes land at our airports? Maybe we should close down their embassy? Did you know it is in Washington DC, within miles of the site of one of the 9/11 attacks?

You insinuated that I had no idea of what I was talking about.

And I still do. Having a brother in law in the Air Force gives you no special insight into what's going on there and your comments make it pretty clear that your knowledge of military strategy is pretty limited (and that is a very kind assessment).

Supporting troops on there territory is understandable. That's different from them having greater access to our ports.

Based on what? If they are a terrorist threat, what should be our biggest concern? How about an attack on the largest USN base in the region that could cripple our efforts not only in that region, but also our ability to respond in other regions, like say the Taiwan Straits or the Korean Penisula. That naval base is in UAE.

Supporting troops on there territory is understandable. That's different from them having greater access to our ports.

That's the problem, if you say they are not trustworthy enough to have a relatively minor role in managing some US ports, what incentive do they have to provide additional support or even continue current support?

Bingo. I was all for removing Saddam and taking out the Taliban. Once that was done, we should have left.

Then what was the point? How would this policy help our long-term national security interests? What's the historical precedent for doing this? What would have been the result of this policy in Germany or Japan? Actually it was tried in Germany after WW1, want to take a guess at the result?

53

So should we doubt the trustworthiness of devout Muslims who serve in the U.S. Armed Forces?

I am getting the impression that a "No Muslims need apply" sign in front of our recruiting stations would be cause for celebration among some in here.

54

Boonton, being passively supportive can be just as dangerous as actively supportive since it provides the active jihadists pockets where they can move freely. Your estimate of only 1,200-1,400 jihadists seems pretty low. Finally, this isn't about race, it's about a mainline Islamic religious belief that sees infidels as the enemy.

Really? How many would you estimate? Don't you think it's rather amazing that not even 100 have been able to make it into the US and actually attempt to carry out violence? Either terrorism is a lot less mainstream than you think or our Dept. of Homeland Security is doing a much better job securing everything than it appears!

Keep in mind we are talking about only the most dangerous jihadists here. The ones that are willing to travel halfway around the globe to attack the US. I'm not talking about the ones in Iraq...many of whom are fighting what they perceive to be a 'local' fight.

55

Based on past actions and words, Muslims deserve a lot more scrutiny than let's say Buddhists.

So what would you do if a family of Muslims moved into your neighborhood, Chris? What if one of your kids befriended one? Can Muslims be Americans, Chris?

56

I brought this up the last time we talked about this but maybe many of you missed it. After 9/11, like many people, I spent a lot of time thinking "How could they hit again". Everywhere we went we saw potential targets..."look at that oil tank there, look at the GW Bridge, how do we secure that?"

Here's a thought that is comforting and disturbing. You know those propane tanks for outdoor grills? The ones that cost less than $20 at Wal-Mart? Guess what? They can easily blow up a house, even a small building. Now imagine someone with $200 getting ten of them and then leaving them around a shopping mall with timers to go off right after it opens? Who the hell needs to buy a multi-national company to buy port contracts, you just need to get a Capital One card! Imagine someone dropping on in a subway and running away? It would be super easy to pull off another 9/11 with casualties very close to the original 9/11 and suicide wouldn't even be necessary. More on the disturbing side; if you were willing to hit less dramatic targets like the Empire State Building you would have a really easy time. Manhatten may be on 'lock down' but certainly not every large mall accross the country!

So on the comforting angle considering how easy it would be to cause destruction and considering it could be done without suicide and considering how impossible it would be to secure all targets against attacks it is rather amazing how little terrorism has happened. Even in a hot spot like Iraq or Israel-Palestine it's rather amazing how few bombs go off considering how easy bombs are to make.

Which leads to the conclusion that true terrorists are thankfully somewhat rare. This is surprising because there seems no shortages of nutcases like Tim McVeigh. Thankfully, though, it would seem like nutcases have a hard time getting their acts together which is a good thing for all of us.

57

Based on past actions and words, Muslims deserve a lot more scrutiny than let's say Buddhists.

Past actions and words indicate that if the circumstances are right you'll get terrorism out of any group. The UK-Northern Ireland scenero, for example, showed that Catholc and Prostestant Christians were not above blowing up innocent people over what? A geography dispute between two gov'ts that look almost exactly the same to anyone looking in on the outside. Not too long ago radical Hindus in India rioted and burned a historic Mosque to the ground because they thought the Mosque had been built over the birthplace of one of their gods thousands of years ago. I don't recall if any Muslims died but I'm sure at least a few did.

I'm not aware that Buddhists have any record of violence but I'd be rather surprised if this was really the case.

58

Reap what you Sow

For five years the Bush administration has been strumming the fear chord: dangerous terrorists are attacking us, Saddam has nukes, Saddam is supporting Al Qaeda, we need your library records, the FISA court is in the way of the NSA. How can anyone be surprised at the huge negative response to replacing a British company with one owned by the UAE to manage ports just miles away from ground zero in NYC — to say nothing of Baltimore which, if I remember my geography correctly, is a short hop from Washington, DC, home of the Pentagon (the other place an airliner crashed into on 9/11)?

And why was it that in reviewing Dubai deal did we not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders — something done routinely in transactions like this?

59

Who the hell needs to buy a multi-national company to buy port contracts, you just need to get a Capital One card!

Amen!! If UAE really wanted to launch a major terrorist attack, there are a lot better ways to spend $6.8B. You could probably buy 1/2 the Russian nuclear arsenal for that or at least 1/2 the Pakistani one. What did OBL spend on 9/11, $500k?

60

For five years the Bush administration has been strumming the fear chord: dangerous terrorists are attacking us

Not to switch gears, but dangerous terrorists did attack us and not just on 9/11 and there have been attempts since then.

Saddam has nukes

When did Bush ever say this? When did anybody?

Saddam is supporting Al Qaeda

I think it is pretty well established that there was at least some contact between OBL and SH and SH was definitely supporting terrorists? How extensive the ties between SH and AQ is TBD. There are a lot of documents captured in Iraq and only a small percentage have been reviewed. We may find that there were little or not ties between SH and OBL specifically, or we may not.

we need your library records

Has their ever been a time when librarians and patrons enjoyed the equivalent of "lawyer-client" confidentiality? If you don't want the government to find out what books you are reading, don't borrow them from the government-run libraries. Do like all the other crazies, buy your books on how the Roswell Aliens run the government at a book store and pay with cash.

the FISA court is in the way of the NSA

Well, the 9/11 commission did indicate that the FISA court was too slow, but that begs the question, does the NSA need a warrant to listen in on known terrorists operating outside the US? If that known terrorist calls somebody in the US, is NSA legally obligated to stop listening? There seem to be reasonable arguments on both sides of the issue. Do you not want NSA spying on terrorists?

61

Speaking of money, at least the longshoremen are being hired by someone at their income level. The ILA members make over $100K with paid medical... they're as rich as cousins of oil sheiks! And just for working a boom crane.

If you want to get worried about security, research what happened on US docks during WWII, and how the federal government was shaken down by the Mafia.

62

Boonton wrote: But with terrorism you're not looking at anywhere near these numbers. You're looking at maybe 1 in a million (NO, simply finding people who don't like Israel or don't like the US doesn't count...you're looking for people ACTIVELY engaged in planning to attack the US). Racial profiling here would fail and in fact be highly likely to backfire
---
I suggest to you that this is incorrect logic. The issue is not that the Dubai company itself sponsors terrorism. The issue is that the employees -- presumably Arab males from the Middle East, some of whom are Muslims -- may be sympathetic to their more radical Muslim brethren. The risk is that terrorists can more easily infiltrate ports because the DP World employees may be more sympathetic to countrymen who have the will to commit a violent act. The employees do not have to possess the steely resolve to engage in suicide bombing; they just need to be sympathetic enough to look the other way. Just as the field mice somehow find a way into my house in the winter, the terrorists will find a way to infiltrate. This makes it easier for them. The number of actively-plotting-terrorists per million of UAE citizens is largely irrelevant.

Moreover, we have literally no idea how many potential terrorists there are among Islamic males from the Middle East. You made that number up. The cartoon riots have shown that quite a few members of this demographic group are very easily incited to violence, right?

We have questions about whether UAE is our ally. Even the Wall St. Journal, which supports the deal, says they are a chameleon country. So why are we having this debate after the deal was signed, without the knowledge of the President?

63

Well, the 9/11 commission did indicate that the FISA court was too slow, but that begs the question, does the NSA need a warrant to listen in on known terrorists operating outside the US? If that known terrorist calls somebody in the US, is NSA legally obligated to stop listening? There seem to be reasonable arguments on both sides of the issue. Do you not want NSA spying on terrorists?

The problem is not so much the principle of the gov't spying on terrorists (even if they call the US) but the argument of this administration that it is essentially above the law when it comes to anything it deems 'national security' related. Out of tens of thousands of FISA requests only a handful were ever denied. The gov't can even start tapping & then submit the FISA request later on if it determines time is of the essence. The administration has not argued that its warrentless taps were because FISA was too slow, it has argued that it can tap anyone anywhere if it happens to say "national security". Both when originally written and when it was recently revised the Patriot Act could have created a new system for supervising wiretaps while promoting national security yet the administration has never asked for one nor even stated that there was a problem with FISA.

I think this is less about cheap political points (although that's part of it) than it is about the fact that the Bush admin has lost its credibility. Yes a large part of it is due to these games that it plays. When Civil Liberties are the issue was are "at war(tm)" and extreme measures are needed at extreme times. When it's business as usual then all in the sudden the world is normal again and there's no need to get excited.

64

Moreover, we have literally no idea how many potential terrorists there are among Islamic males from the Middle East. You made that number up. The cartoon riots have shown that quite a few members of this demographic group are very easily incited to violence, right?

Errr yea but what we are concerned with is people coming to the US and committing terrorism. That a riot happens halfway around the globe isn't nearly that important (note again how all of the violence seems to be happening close to the home of the protestors....few incidents have happened in Denmark aside from loud protests). My point stands, if the portion of Muslims actively engaged in anti-US terrorism was significant then racial profiling would work but we would also be seeing a huge, really huge, amount of terrorism and quite frankly we aren't.

I suggest to you that this is incorrect logic. The issue is not that the Dubai company itself sponsors terrorism. The issue is that the employees -- presumably Arab males from the Middle East, some of whom are Muslims -- may be sympathetic to their more radical Muslim brethren. The risk is that terrorists can more easily infiltrate ports because the DP World employees may be more sympathetic to countrymen who have the will to commit a violent act.

Just because a foreign country owns something in the US doesn't mean that anyone it gives an employee id too can just hop a flight in. Just like someone from the UAE who gets a job working for an American country, they would have to go through the same visa & greencard requirements to work on US soil as anyone else. If they are just coming over for a short 'business meeting' they would have to meet the same requirements as any other person applying to visit the US for a short term.

65

the argument of this administration that it is essentially above the law when it comes to anything it deems 'national security' related.

it has argued that it can tap anyone anywhere if it happens to say "national security".

When has the Bush administration made either of these claims? The Bush administration is arguing that they have significant powers granted to them by the Constitution to protect national security in a time of war. That is pretty different from claiming to be above the law. These wiretaps aren't on "anyone, anywhere", they are on known-terrorists operating outside the US. Nobody is arguing that NSA needs a FISA warrant to spy on known-terrorist operating outside the US, the point of contention is whether or not NSA needs a FISA warrant to listen in on calls that these known-terrorists make to people in the US. The Justice Department and the President's legal team doesn't seem to think so, some members of Congress do, but even they aren't arguing that we shouldn't be listening in. I guess you could argue that to avoid the conflict, the President should just go ahead and get the FISA warrants, but then you put the President into the position of not just surrendering this power, that he thinks the Constitution gives him, for his presidency, but for future presidents as well.

66

I suggest to you that this is incorrect logic. The issue is not that the Dubai company itself sponsors terrorism. The issue is that the employees -- presumably Arab males from the Middle East, some of whom are Muslims -- may be sympathetic to their more radical Muslim brethren.

If this indeed is your concern, then I suggest that a UAE company buying a company that loads and unloads cargo in a few ports should be the least of your concerns. Should we round up all the young Muslim males here on student visas and ship them home? What about all the young, Muslim males serving in our military? Should we ship them off to Gitmo or would a mere dishonorable discharge serve? What about the young, Muslim males holding high positions in our own Defense Department (what you think there aren't any, I worked for one of them)? Did you know that some of these Muslim countries have airlines and that occasionally young, Muslim males fly on them? Did you know that many Middle Eastern, Muslim countries have embassies in Washington, DC, site of one of the 9/11 attacks? Did you further know that some of these embassies have young, Muslim males attached to them? What ever shall we do?

67

When has the Bush administration made either of these claims? The Bush administration is arguing that they have significant powers granted to them by the Constitution to protect national security in a time of war. That is pretty different from claiming to be above the law. These wiretaps aren't on "anyone, anywhere", they are on known-terrorists operating outside the US. Nobody is arguing that NSA needs a FISA warrant to spy on known-terrorist operating outside the US, the point of contention is whether or not NSA needs a FISA warrant to listen in on calls that these known-terrorists make to people in the US.

The administration has argued that there is no distinction between inside or outside the US when it comes to this war. As for their claims that their decisions are outside review of either Congress or the Courts I would start with :

http://www.slate.com/id/2136057/

I guess you could argue that to avoid the conflict, the President should just go ahead and get the FISA warrants, but then you put the President into the position of not just surrendering this power, that he thinks the Constitution gives him, for his presidency, but for future presidents as well.

I'm not sure how this follows. Previous presidents got FISA warrants, the current President has as well yet this didn't 'surrender' the Presidents power not to get them today (if he indeed has such a power). The problem here is that the only person deciding who is a 'known' terrorist and deciding which calls to intercept is the Executive and it is arguing its decisions are beyond review by any other branch. As I pointed out before, Bush has had many opportunities to call for FISA to be changed if it really is the problem (for example, he could have easily asked for it in the Patriot Act).

68

Boonton said: When Civil Liberties are the issue was are "at war(tm)" and extreme measures are needed at extreme times. When it's business as usual then all in the sudden the world is normal again and there's no need to get excited.
---

I have to agree with Boonton here. I think there are enough legal experts on both sides of the wiretap issues to say that it is controversial, at the least, with regard to it being a violation of fourth amendment rights. The implication is that national security is more important than the Bill of Rights, but less important than commerce?

69

ucfengr wrote: Should we round up all the young Muslim males here on student visas and ship them home? What about all the young, Muslim males serving in our military? Should we ship them off to Gitmo or would a mere dishonorable discharge serve? What about the young, Muslim males holding high positions in our own Defense Department (what you think there aren't any, I worked for one of them)? Did you know that some of these Muslim countries have airlines and that occasionally young, Muslim males fly on them? Did you know that many Middle Eastern, Muslim countries have embassies in Washington, DC, site of one of the 9/11 attacks? Did you further know that some of these embassies have young, Muslim males attached to them? What ever shall we do?
---
Not sure if you are really serious here are not. The examples are rather trivial. Muslim males serving in the military, and those employed by DOD, are US citizens and should be given all the rights of any other US citizen. Muslim males working at foreign embassies have diplomatic immunity, as if they were on the soil of their own country, so we cannot do anything as long as we recognize the government of that country. Airline employees, Muslim or not, should be subject to security checks at their point of departure.

Our ports have many security gaps. The employment of citizens of a country that has a questionable alliance with the U.S. is perhaps not the most significant security flaw, but it is still a potential security problem. Do not trivialize this as being just racist overreaction, which is what you seem to imply.

If this deal is a safe and sound as you believe, then why are you not in favor of an appropriate investigation? You still have not answered the question of why this debate is occurring AFTER the deal was signed? If this is such a sure thing, then why was there not adequate communication to the President, let alone the governors and congressmen of the affected states?

70

The administration has argued that there is no distinction between inside or outside the US when it comes to this war.

Recall the previous presidents (Lincoln springs to mind) have suspended habeas corpus, in violation of court orders to the contrary, and interned, without charge large groups of people in time of war. The Constitution give presidents war time powers that are pretty broad, while Congress' and the Judiciary's are pretty small. Listening in on conversations between terrorists operating inside or outside of the US probably falls under them, especially when these are foreign terrorists like Al Queda. If Congress truly feels that the President is in violation of the Constitution, they do have a remedy, it's called impeachment. If Clinton can be impeached for lying to a grand jury about sex in the White House, surely Bush could be impeached an convicted for gross violations of the Bill of Rights and his war time powers.

71

Our ports have many security gaps.

If this is so, why has nobody exploited them successfully?

The employment of citizens of a country that has a questionable alliance

What would UAE have to do to move from a "questionable alliance" to unquestionable one? Convert to Christianity? If our alliance with UAE is "questionable", then we don't have any unquestionable ones. Remember the "shoe bomber" was a Brit. Does that make our alliance with the Brits questionable too?

72

Eric & Lisa:

It was spoken by Bush. You doubt it because Josh Marshall said it?

C'mon, are you really that closed-minded to think that simply because somebody quotes something that you don't like, and the source is moderate (Marshall's hardly a leftist on things - for that try maxspeak or conceptualguerilla.com) that Bush didn't say it?

You know, there's things going on right in front of your nose, and you don't even sense that you're being distracted.

Let me give you an example: In yesterday's Daily Yomiuri, English edition (you read that don't you?) there was an article I think was reprinted from the Washington Post, saying something to the effect of "Now that the Saudis are wealthy from the windfall in oil, they might not make the 'reforms' that will rid their society of a theocracy."

Somebody up there said something to the effect of, "Why hasn't there been an attack on our vulnerable ports?"

OK, I'll connect the dots for you...

Just prior to 9/11, Saudi Arabia was undergoing a severe economic crisis; I read a report that said there was a 31% unemployment rate...See where I'm going yet?

A year after 9/11, gasoline prices went way up, possibly due at least in part because of the very small amount of oil being taken off the market from Iraq following the war...

Do you get it yet?

Somebody above noted the UAE's "contribution" to the "War on Terror."

Folks, it was our contribution to the "War on Terror," paid at your local gas pump.

We're bribing them, or perhaps more to the point, paying them protection money. They'll crack down on terrorists stop funding terrorists as long as they keep getting an increasing share of the oil wealth.

And in return they'll spend money to "build their infrastructure" again like they did in the 80s.

Call me whatever you want, but people don't do these beneficial things for each other by accident.

73

So what would you do if a family of Muslims moved into your neighborhood, Chris? What if one of your kids befriended one? Can Muslims be Americans, Chris?

Considering I live in a town with a large Muslim population, I think I've answered that question. I work with some Muslims and we have friends where the wife is Muslim. Of course, three of their co-religionists were just arrested for planning jihadist activities, a charity was closed for supporting Hamas, and the local imam had an editorial talking about how maligned and offended muslims were by cartoons printed in Denmark.

Yes, they can be Americans but they need to refute two Islamic principles, jihad and sharia. Neither principle is acceptable in a Western society. Yet, we see large numbers of Muslims (40% in Britain in a recent poll) wanting to see sharia law implemented in parts of Britain. Canada just recently stopped sharia courts from being given legal standing in the area of family law. They can't have it both ways. Either they support the understanding that the gov't and religion are separate or they can leave. Some manage to do that by either being ignorant of what Islam truly says or by mangling and disgarding large swathes of religious texts.

You seem to believe that there is something inherently wrong with judging people based on their beliefs. Right now I'm sure you are judging me based on my words and beliefs. Yet somehow, when people point out that Islam makes certain claims about gov't, women, religion, etc. and that those claims do not mesh with Western beliefs, then those people are racists and/or facists. If I am one, then so be it.

74

"Either they support the understanding that the gov't and religion are separate or they can leave."

You don't know how happy I was to see this, if you think it pertains to ALL religions.

75

Recall the previous presidents (Lincoln springs to mind) have suspended habeas corpus, in violation of court orders to the contrary, and interned, without charge large groups of people in time of war. The Constitution give presidents war time powers that are pretty broad, while Congress' and the Judiciary's are pretty small.

Perhaps you could cite those war time powers from the Constitution itself. You'll note that it doesn't provide for anything other than to say that the President is Commander-in-Chief and the only direct thing it says about War is that only Congress has the power to declare it!

If Congress truly feels that the President is in violation of the Constitution, they do have a remedy, it's called impeachment.

The President would have to be guilty of a 'high crime or misdemanor' first... Simply being in violation may not be sufficient for that, especially if he respects some of the checks and balances on him such as a Court ruling.

Our ports have many security gaps.

If this is so, why has nobody exploited them successfully?

Probably because there are only a few people seeking to exploit them.

Yet somehow, when people point out that Islam makes certain claims about gov't, women, religion, etc. and that those claims do not mesh with Western beliefs,

What do you think of the beliefs of ultra-orthodox Jewish sects? They too have their own version of family law & their thinking on women's issues rarely meets with the NOW stamp of approval. People are free to believe what they want. Any serious faith such as Islam spawns a diversity of beliefs some of which are incompatitable with society and other versions are. One is free to be as orthodox as one wishes as long one concedes they may not impose it upon others. The vast majority of Muslims in the US accept this.

76

Of course, three of their co-religionists were just arrested for planning jihadist activities, a charity was closed for supporting Hamas, and the local imam had an editorial talking about how maligned and offended muslims were by cartoons printed in Denmark.

So, do the acts of their co-religionists make your neighbors, co-workers, or friends suspect?

You seem to believe that there is something inherently wrong with judging people based on their beliefs. Right now I'm sure you are judging me based on my words and beliefs.

Nothing wrong with judging people based on their beliefs, but you've gone beyond that. You have said that all Muslims are suspect because of the actions of a small group of their co-religionists.

Yes, they can be Americans but they need to refute two Islamic principles, jihad and sharia.

Jihad has different meanings to different Muslims, as does Sharia, most of them fairly acceptable. For example, Sharia does not require the wearing of the burkha, that is the interpretation of some more fundementalist sects, for many (most, probably), it is an injunction for women to dress modestly. For many Muslims, Jihad represents an internal struggle for the believer to try to better comport with the wishes of Allah, not an external one to convert the world by the sword. For someone who claims to have Muslim neighbors and friends, you don't seem to have much knowledge of their religion. What do you talk with them about?

Either they support the understanding that the gov't and religion are separate or they can leave.

As Rob Ryan just pointed out, that sentiment cuts a lot of ways, many of which I doubt you would agree with.

77

Perhaps you could cite those war time powers from the Constitution itself.

The Constitution charges the President with preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution (through the oath of office), it does not define limits on what he may do to uphold that oath or what he may do as Commander in Chief.

The President would have to be guilty of a 'high crime or misdemanor' first... Simply being in violation may not be sufficient for that, especially if he respects some of the checks and balances on him such as a Court ruling.

The Constitution does not define what a "high crime or misdemeanor" is, Congress does (look at the example of Andrew Johnson). If a majority of the House and 2/3's of the Senate think that he has abused the power of the Presidency, they have the authority to remove him from office.

Probably because there are only a few people seeking to exploit them.

We arguement here. I doubt that UAE taking over responsibility for hiring longshoremen to load or unload cargo with change this.

One is free to be as orthodox as one wishes as long one concedes they may not impose it upon others. The vast majority of Muslims in the US accept this.

You could probably stretch this sentiment world-wide. The vast majority of Muslim do not want to impose, let alone live under a Taliban-like theocracy.

78

The Constitution charges the President with preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution (through the oath of office), it does not define limits on what he may do to uphold that