The U.S. Ports deal.

[NYCe]

Frankly, I'm more surprised that there are no posts about this than the actual deal.

[Moister]

Frankly, I'm more surprised that there are no posts about this than the actual deal.

I'm just happy I didn't vote for him...

[Caleigh]

you mean that the contract for their security is going to be handled by a foreign owned company with links to al-qaeda?

[chefmike]

Coming to A Port Near You-where Dubya stands for Dubai

Kristen Breitweiser
www.huffingtonpost.com

Some excerpts from this great article-

"YOU ARE EITHER WITH US OR WITH THE TERRORISTS"

Recognize those words, Mr. President? You should, because you uttered them immediately after the 9/11 attacks. And, that's why I now question your recent approval of the outsourcing of our port security to an Arab nation that funded the 9/11 hijackers.

Need proof of the financial assistance provided by the UAE to the 9/11 hijackers? Then, perhaps, you should review the Moussaoui indictment laid out by the United States Justice Department. And first, remember that Moussaoui is the ONLY terrorist that we are currently "bringing to justice" (since you have yet to capture Bin Laden "dead or alive"). And, hopefully with all your recent arrogant, assumed Absolute Executive Powers, you might even persuade Attorney General Gonzales (you know, the guy who runs the Justice Department) to actually read the Moussaoui indictment, as well, since he also thinks this Dubai Deal passes the smell test.

Specifically, you and Gonzales should read the following counts in the Moussaoui indictment:

21. On or about June 29, 2000, $4,790 was wired from the United Arab Emirates ("UAE") to Marwan al-Shehhi (#175) in Manhattan.

22. On or about July 19, 2000, $9,985 was wired from UAE into a Florida SunTrust bank account in the names of Mohammed Atta (#11) and Marwan al-Shehhi (#175).

24. On or about August 7, 2000, $9,485 was wired from UAE into a Florida SunTrust bank account in the names of Mohammed Atta (#11) and Marwan al-Shehhi (#175).

25. On or about August 30, 2000, $19,985 was wired from UAE into a Florida SunTrust bank account in the names of Mohammed Atta (#11) and Marwan al-Shehhi (#175).

26. On or about September 18, 2000, $69,985 was wired from UAE into a Florida SunTrust bank account in the names of Mohamed Atta (#11) and Marwan al-Shehhi (#175).

61. On July 18, 2001, Fayez Ahmed (#175) gave power of attorney to Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi for Fayez Ahmed's Standard Chartered Bank accounts in UAE.

62. On July 18, 2001, using his power of attorney, Al-Hawsawi picked up Fayez Ahmed's VISA and ATM cards in UAE.

63. Between July 18 and August 1, 2001, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi caused Fayez Ahmed's VISA and ATM cards to be shipped from UAE to Fayez Ahmed in Florida. (The VISA card was then used for the first time on August 1, 2001, in Florida.) Jarrah (#93) Travels to Germany

66. On or about July 30 and 31, 2001, in Hamburg, Germany, Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, using the name "Ahad Sabet," received two wire transfers, totaling approximately $15,000, from "Hashim Abdulrahman" in UAE.

76. On or about August 22, 2001, Fayez Ahmed (#175) used his VISA card in Florida to obtain approximately $4,900 cash, which had been deposited into his Standard Chartered Bank account in UAE the day before.

87. On or about September 3, 2001, in Hamburg, Germany, Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, using the name "Ahad Sabet," received approximately $1500 by wire transfer from "Hashim Ahmed" in UAE.

88. On or about September 4, 2001, Mohammed Atta (#11) sent a FedEx package from Florida to UAE.

90. On or about September 6, 2001, Satam al-Suqami (#11) and Abdulaziz Alomari (#11) flew from Florida to Boston. The Hijackers Return Excess Money to Al-Hawsawi in UAE.

92. On or about September 8, 2001, an Arab male retrieved the package from Mohammed Atta (#11) at FedEx in Dubai, UAE.

93. On September 8, 2001, Mohammed Atta (#11) wired $2,860 to "Mustafa Ahmed" in UAE.

94. On September 8, 2001, Mohammed Atta (#11) wired $5,000 to "Mustafa Ahmed" in UAE.

95. On September 9, 2001, Waleed M. al-Shehri (#11) wired $5,000 to "Ahamad Mustafa" in UAE.

96. On September 10, 2001, Marwan al-Shehhi (#175) wired $5,400 to "Mustafa Ahmad" in UAE.

97. On September 11, 2001, in UAE, approximately $16,348 was deposited into Al-Hawsawi's Standard Chartered Bank account.

98. On September 11, 2001, in UAE, at about 9:22 a.m. local time (the early morning hours of Eastern Daylight Time), Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi moved approximately $6,534 from the $8,055 in Fayez Ahmed's (#175) Standard Chartered Bank account into his own account, using a check dated September 10, 2001 and signed by Fayez Ahmed; Al-Hawsawi then withdrew approximately $1,361, nearly all the remaining balance in Ahmed's account, by ATM cash withdrawal.

99. On September 11, 2001, in UAE, approximately $40,871 was prepaid to a VISA card connected to Al-Hawsawi's Standard Chartered Bank account.

WE DO NOT NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS"

You seem to be right on this one President Bush. We don't "negotiate" with terrorists; we get blackmailed or "oil-mailed" by them, huh.

But, hey, if you are so confident that the UAE is truly our ally, why not release the 28 classified pages of the Joint Inquiry of Congress that investigated the 9/11 attacks. Those 28 pages remain classified and detail the foreign nations that funded the 9/11 hijackers. Until de-classified and shown to the American public, how can we--the people that you work for--really know who the terrorists are.

Unlike you, Mr. President, we are not comfortable having a floating, vacuous definition of who a "terrorist" is depending upon your power-grab of the day. We would like the facts, sir. Because, as long as those 28 pages remain classified, to quote Mr. Rumsfeld--"we don't know, what we don't know." (Or, maybe you like it like that, huh?)

article in it's entirety here-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-breitweiser/coming-to-a-port-near-you_b_16218.html

[chefmike]

BREAKING NEWS...

Libya Has Just Purchased JFK Airport
Cenk Uygur

Encouraged by the recent purchase of six sea ports in the United States by the United Arab Emirates, Libya has purchased JFK Airport in New York. Colonel Muammar Gaddafi says, "After several decades of running Libya, I hope this airport purchase finally puts me over the top and gets me promoted to General."


Yemen, never one to be left out of a fun time, has scooped up LAX. But Yemen is still smarting over the loss of Logan International Airport to Oman who outbid them at the close of market. Saudi Arabia is still mystified at how the only airfield they could land in the US was Cleveland-Cuyahoga County. When asked why they were so thoroughly outshined in the airport market by their Middle Eastern counterparts they answered, "Hey, Cleveland rocks!"

But it wasn't just the Middle Eastern countries that were in a feeding frenzy to buy American sea and air ports. In a stinging rebuke to the anti-Castro contingent in South Florida, Cuba has purchased Miami International Airport. And the French were delighted to land George Bush Intercontinental in Houston, saying they will be renaming it Baguette International as long sought revenge for "freedom fries."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/libya-has-just-purchased-_b_16163.html

[Aedan]

Oooppsss!!!!

[InHouston]

you mean that the contract for their security is going to be handled by a foreign owned company with links to al-qaeda?

The contract is not for security. Security at the ports is still provided by federal law enforcement. The contract is for moving cargo on and off the ships, and American workers will still physically move the cargo as they are now. The UAE company is in no way responsible for security for determining what comes and goes through the ports.

Now ... before you flame me ... personally, (much to the surprise of some here who know me) I do not feel the contract should be renewed to the company in the UAE. I feel there is a security risk in having any foreign nation, with direct or indirect ties to terrorist activities, as having any level of oversight over our ports.

[Quinn]

The contract is not for security. Security at the ports is still provided by federal law enforcement. The contract is for moving cargo on and off the ships, and American workers will still physically move the cargo as they are now. The UAE company is in no way responsible for security for determining what comes and goes through the ports.

Now ... before you flame me ... personally, (much to the surprise of some here who know me) I do not feel the contract should be renewed to the company in the UAE. I feel there is a security risk in having any foreign nation, with direct or indirect ties to terrorist activities, as having any level of oversight over our ports.

A great post. Cosign.

Oh, and in reference to the stuff Chef posted regarding financial transactions via the UAE, it's an open secret to anyone involved in international finance that the UAE – despite assertions to the contrary by its government – is a money laundering paradise. It’s like hiding your money in Lichtenstein. Sure, the government officially complies with a host of anti-money laundering, anti-tax evasion agreements, but unofficially it’s a cake walk.

-Quinn

[mbf]

now just imagine all the howling from republicans if a democrat proposed that very same deal....

anyways just too funny how the cheney/bush gang give away all their "reasons" when it comes to money.

[chefmike]

There are people on both sides of the fence who have mentioned the glaring hole in our port security, hopefully this issue will bring it to the attention of John Q. Public again.

U.S. Port Security Is Found Lacking
Associated Press
Thursday, October 14, 2004


The Department of Homeland Security's independent investigator has concluded that federal inspectors of oceangoing shipping containers still need to improve their detection equipment and search procedures to prevent terrorists from sneaking weapons of mass destruction into U.S. ports.

In a report to be released today, the department inspector general acknowledges that U.S. Customs and Border Protection has made security changes and has others planned.


Clark Kent Ervin said he still has recommendations to improve the equipment that detects threatening cargo, such as nuclear material, and make inspection procedures more effective.

Details were not made public in the unclassified report.

"Improvements are needed in the inspection process to ensure that weapons of mass destruction or other implements of terror do not gain access to the U.S. through oceangoing cargo containers," Ervin wrote.

Despite improvements made since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, less than 5 percent of containers are inspected.

[Reddman]

Maybe Dubya did not rubber stamp this one himself but what's most troubling is the friggin' Sec of Treasure John Snow admitted that he found out about the whole deal by reading it in the paper too :shock: . The fact the man in charge of overseeing foreign investments here was in the dark does not make any of this easy to swallow.

[Gus The Dagger]

I dont really care about this port thing

[Reddman]

I dont really care about this port thing


You don't but others do as the lawsuits are being filed left and right as of today.

[Felicia Katt]

Homeland Security Objected to Ports Deal
By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Homeland Security Department objected at first to a United Arab Emirates company's taking over significant operations at six U.S. ports. It was the lone protest among members of the government committee that eventually approved the deal without dissent.

The administration approved the ports deal on Jan. 17 after DP World agreed during secret negotiations to cooperate with law enforcement investigations in the future and make other concessions.

Some lawmakers have challenged the adequacy of a classified intelligence assessment crucial to assuring the administration that the deal was proper. The report was assembled during four weeks in November by analysts working for the director of national intelligence.

The report concluded that U.S. spy agencies were "unable to locate any derogatory information on the company," according to a person familiar with the document. This person spoke only on condition of anonymity because the report was classified.

Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., and others have complained that the intelligence report focused only on information the agencies collected about DP World and did not examine reported links between UAE government officials and al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden before the Sept. 11 attacks.

President Bush, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and even Treasury Secretary John Snow, who oversees the government committee that approved the deal, all say they did not know about the purchase until after it was finalized. The work was done mostly by assistant secretaries.

Officials from the White House, CIA, departments of State, Treasury, Justices, and others looked for guidance from Homeland Security because it is responsible for seaports. "We had the most obvious stake in the process," Baker said.

Baker acknowledged that a government audit of security practices at the U.S. ports in the takeover has not been completed as part of the deal. "We had the authority to do an audit earlier," Baker said.

Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, said there was no going back on the deal.



America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people.
George W. Bush

I guess an absence note is different than a permission slip.

There's no bigger task than protecting the homeland of our country.
George W. Bush

But its not big enough that Bush or his cabinet bothered to work on it themselves, not big enough to be bothered to look at the Country that owns the company they did look at, and its not big enough to even finish a security audit of the ports involved. And I guess the money is too big that we won't look at reconsidering the deal.

FK

[TrueBeauty TS]

Homeland Security Objected to Ports Deal
By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer


President Bush, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and even Treasury Secretary John Snow, who oversees the government committee that approved the deal, all say they did not know about the purchase until after it was finalized. The work was done mostly by assistant secretaries.
FK


Who is running this country??? It's like Indiana Jones opening the cockpit door and seeing there is no one flying the plane.

This administration has only one policy... everything is for sale. Our culture, our land, our weapons, our secrets, our busineses, our values, our jobs, our people, our future and now even our security. If you can sell it and make money, then that's "good for America!". Osama is doing it the hard way. He doesn't have to go to war with us, he could just save up some money and buy us outright. (Just like China is doing.)

If this were any other time in history, the people in this administration would be arrested and tried on charges of treason against the United States.

It seems nowadays, treason is just another word for Capitalism.

[shemalejunky]

Folks, what's at issue? I cannot see anything wrong with this transaction. The company being taken over is British, not American. These port operations have been in its hands for years. As well, they are only a portion of the operations at any one port, not the entirety. Safety is the responsibility of the government. Some posters in other forums have gone to the point of stating that jobs will be lost due to the fact that this company, being Arab, will import Arab workers! My lord. There is a lot of misunderstanding here, but more or less, just an inability to divulge the facts.

[chefmike]

:roll:

[lmw222001]

I Was Watching Rudy Guliani Being Interviewed The Other Night And He Said That,"Americans Should Be Running Our Ports And No One Else."
He's Positively Right. Our Seaports,Airports,Borders And Any Points Of Entry Into Our Country Need To Be Managed,Built,Patrolled And Maintained By Americans.
Why We Would Even Consider Letting An Arab Company Have The Contract For This (Managing) Just Leaves Me Fucking Speechless.
Let's Get Our Shit Together Here.
Put It Out To Bid In The US. To Be Bid On Only By A US Company.

[tubgirl]

Folks, what's at issue? I cannot see anything wrong with this transaction. The company being taken over is British, not American. These port operations have been in its hands for years. As well, they are only a portion of the operations at any one port, not the entirety. Safety is the responsibility of the government. Some posters in other forums have gone to the point of stating that jobs will be lost due to the fact that this company, being Arab, will import Arab workers! My lord. There is a lot of misunderstanding here, but more or less, just an inability to divulge the facts.

i don't see it as a worker issue so much as a security issue. we need someone who has the same world values that we do (or at least close) running our ports. you are correct, the company being taken over is british, but it is a company. we are talking about giving power of the ports over to, literally, another country. the new company is owned bt the UAE, who have had direct ties to al-queda

[Reddman]

Folks, what's at issue? I cannot see anything wrong with this transaction. The company being taken over is British, not American. These port operations have been in its hands for years. As well, they are only a portion of the operations at any one port, not the entirety. Safety is the responsibility of the government. Some posters in other forums have gone to the point of stating that jobs will be lost due to the fact that this company, being Arab, will import Arab workers! My lord. There is a lot of misunderstanding here, but more or less, just an inability to divulge the facts.

i don't see it as a worker issue so much as a security issue. we need someone who has the same world values that we do (or at least close) running our ports. you are correct, the company being taken over is british, but it is a company. we are talking about giving power of the ports over to, literally, another country. the new company is owned bt the UAE, who have had direct ties to al-queda


Exactly. Hey imagine if in the midst of the Cold War era that the government approved and granted the same deal to the Soviet Union. Heads would have rolled.

[chefmike]

It would have been so appropriate if shrubya had exercised his first veto in regards to the port deal objections...the icing on the cake to his legacy of shame.
But the smart money predicted that he would chicken(hawk) out and try to save face as he did with his Harriet Meyers fiasco...

and it certainly appears as though that is what is going to happen-

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11577087/