U.S. Port Security: Should The Fox Guard The Hen House?
Today is significant. Not just because love is in the air. But because we find ourselves, for once, agreeing fully with Sen. Chuck Schumer. How can this be?
According to the NY Post: “Sen. Charles Schumer yesterday warned that terrorists could infiltrate the city’s ports if a company from the United Arab Emirates is allowed to run the waterfront.”
Somebody call Pelosi: Regarding the WOT, that’s one of the most reasonable statements offered by a Democrat in a long time.
A ship bomb could be detonated in a port, and vessels could bring deadly arsenals into the country under the radar if port security were put in the hands of the Persian Gulf firm, Schumer said just days after it was revealed that Dubai Ports World will be in charge of the ports.
“Since 9/11, my motto has been to be careful, and this raises a whole lot of red flags,” he said.
“Foreign control of our ports, which are vital to homeland security, is a risky proposition. Riskier yet is that we are turning it over to a country that has been linked to terrorism previously.”
Well. Duh. But thanks for pointing it out to your colleagues, Chuck. It’d be nice to see more backbone on that side of the aisle.
Schumer’s terror warnings came as a company owned by the UAE government got a step closer to running the city’s ports after shareholders in the London company P&O Steam Navigation yesterday approved Dubai Ports World’s $6.8 billion takeover.
The deal will give the company responsibility for hiring security personnel, securing cargo coming in and out and securing facilities of six major East Coast ports including New York.
Two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE and the FBI believes that some of the planning for the Sept. 11 attacks took place in the UAE.
We did a little research on P&O and this is what we found.
First, you’ve got Citibank, Morgan Stanley and Deutsche Bank AG all in on the deal (PDF). Nothing wrong with it. They’re investment bankers, and this is what they do. (Revised proposal here)
Second, according to P&O’s website, these are the N. American ports they currently manage: (click to enlarge)
They also cover Europe: (Calling Tony Blair…)
Third, P&O provides general stevedoring (if you don’t know what that means, we looked it up) in the follow N. American ports:
Considerable coverage. We’re talking about major ports.
Any reasons for concern? Talk to Chuck.
UPDATE: (2/22)
Port Security: We Weren’t Wrong To Question,
But We’re Satisfied By The Answers
Welcome Jawa Report readers! Please take a tour.
UPDATE II: (2/16) “Our ports, our sovereignty…”
Michelle Malkin covers the story, going in-depth here and here
February 14th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
The Sky Is Falling: Democrat Shows Signs Of Having Common Sense On Port Security
Do the feds really want to place the ports of New York and New Jersey in the hands of a Middle East country with ties to the Sept. 11 hijackers?
February 17th, 2006 at 7:46 am
As a person who lives in northern NJ, right next to the port of NY, I am horrified at he thought of Arabs having control over our ports. This is terrorism waiting to happen. What is wrong with the Bush Administration? I cannot believe that I am supporting Chuck Schumer.
February 17th, 2006 at 7:58 am
Ditto.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:45 am
The premature recommmendation of approval for this port deal does not suprise me. Our borders are still wide open to terrorists 4 1/2 years after 9/11, why not open our ports too?
February 17th, 2006 at 11:21 am
Hey Buddy, Wanna Buy a Port?
It does strike me as odd that the development of commercial research facilities constitutes sufficiently vital public use to warrant seizure of private homes, but that the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia ar…
February 17th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
Check out this Jan 24 announcement:
February 17th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
On Ports and Terminal Operators
This morning as I read Michelle Malkin’s blog entry on Our Ports, Our Sovereignty, I wondered how I missed this information. Since my current company publishes trade magazines specifically for the shipping business, I walked to our lobby and picked u…
February 17th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
Re comment #1: Even though DP World might think they control the terminal operations, they still have to use ILA longshore labor. Which could make for a very interesting power struggle.
I have a few more comments on my blog
February 18th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
Dubya willing to give up control of US sea ports?
Proof that even the US government, given the chance, can risk state security, just like Israel’s has, by giving up control of a most crucial part of the country, that being its sea ports. Michelle Malkin provides the details on a deal made by the For…
February 18th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
This appears to be a Bush Administration ploy to create a contoversy so the heat will be transferred from other programs that they are having problems with. Everybody will jump on this now and then they can continue the wiretapping, the Iraq war and Iran with little oversight.
February 18th, 2006 at 5:42 pm
More ice with your Kool-Aid, mpumas?
February 18th, 2006 at 8:55 pm
[...] “A lot of families are incensed by this, because you’re talking about the safety of the country,” said William Doyle, whose son Joseph died at the World Trade Center. “”We have a problem already in our ports because all of our containers aren’t checked, but now they want to add this unknown? It’s not right.” As we reported earlier, hard to believe we find ourselves agreeing with Sen. Schumer. Another sign of the coming apocolypse. [...]
February 19th, 2006 at 11:37 am
Why do they hate us? Western culture, with an underscored respect for reason, capitalism, and individual rights for all members of society is diametrically opposed to the virus of Islamic extremism which is escalating a battle for greater control of the Arab world and beyond. Any progress in lifting the Arab world into modern western standards is not going to be achieved by bribing these regimes to not attack us or capitulating to the demands of the extremists. Our greatest weapon is appealing to the self-interest of Arab companies and workers with the mutual benefits thankfully available through cooperation in modern global markets. Shared interests and shared fortunes with the Arab world will create equal incentives for security both on our shores and theirs. An attack on America by Arabs becomes a self-inflicted wound and sets off internal forces overseas to eradicate the virus.
In the long run, free trade is a more effective diplomacy tool than any number of guns. We are open to working with the Arab world as equals, not as terrorists. Money knows no borders or race or religion.
If these Clintonian political postures are successful, we will send a clear message to the Arab world that America is xenophobic - Arabs need not apply to the modern world, leaving options such as Hamas the seemingly only viable alternative. Assuming the deal is accepted, we send the message that America responds positively to peaceful cooperation and our wrath is only reserved for attacks on the rights that make such free trade available at all.
February 19th, 2006 at 6:39 pm
I am horrified by the Port developments. Who is running our government anyway? What the hell is going on.
OH, by the way, you can bet I’m going to be on my phone, calling senators, congressmen/women, and the white house.
This is not only stupid, its criminal, and someone should be fired, tried, convicted, and punished for selling out america, and they do it in the name of patriotism, god, and freedom. Disgusting!!!!!!!
February 20th, 2006 at 9:53 am
Is the Kool Aid wearing off on you all yet? Bush is actually considering handing over port security to a nation with known terroist links. I thought Bush tapped the fear of terroists quite well by bombing a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. This makes us vulnerable and shows our stupidity when we open our ports to foreign operations. When we skimp funding for better port secuirty so we can free up more money for Iraq (”We’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here”) you can throw that cliche away when the “infallable” leader just handed the enemy six U.S ports. For what, American operations too expensive? Paying American workers a decent wage and benefits so September 10th and not seeing the world in a post 9/11 way? The southern border has been a big hole for decades and security funding for our ports and border would have been cheaper and more efficient than a war that “wasn’t going to cost the tax payers and oil revenues would pay for the occupation” yet the administration has hit up Congress at least 5 times for more funding for Iraq. I thought conservatives were people who wanted fiscal restraint. But when your leader pushes for tax cuts and war guess what we all get DEFICITS.
February 20th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
[...] RELATED: Firm Sues to Block Foreign Port Takeover U.S. Port Security: Should The Fox Guard The Hen House? [...]
February 20th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
What is happening here? I didn’t know that WE….the US of A… didn’t guard our ports in the first place. First England??? Why? and now a Persian Gulf Firm? Would someone explain to me why we can’t/don’t take care of our OWN business? Can’t we do it better, care more, be more watchful than anyone else? Don’t we have companies of our OWN? You know, we as American citizens are not told what is going on, Somehow, it goes by us in the daily work of living. It’s like we must be forever watchful of our presidents, their decisions… be like a watch dog. Distrust seems to be the best way to go. No one told me that an England company was in charge back when? 1999? Was it? SOOOO, in my humble opinion……We should and CAN take care of our own security, our own people, our oown well being better than anyone else!!! Well, isn’t that true???? I’m angry but I feel so let down….I don’t know WHO my friends are. And, in my own country YET!!! What is happening? Upset in Utah, Evie
February 20th, 2006 at 6:24 pm
STOP THE SELLOUT, AMERICANS WILL DIE! DON’T LET MIDDLE EASTER RULE THE WORLD!
February 20th, 2006 at 7:05 pm
Wow..
as if the borders to the north and to the south are open enough, W. has to leave the door wide open to the east too.
Let’s see.. what else can he do to leave this country less secure?
February 20th, 2006 at 11:17 pm
[...] RELATED: Firm Sues to Block Foreign Port Takeover U.S. Port Security: Should The Fox Guard The Hen House? [...]
February 21st, 2006 at 4:02 pm
[...] RELATED: GOP Governors Question Port Turnover Firm Sues to Block Foreign Port Takeover U.S. Port Security: Should The Fox Guard The Hen House? [...]
February 21st, 2006 at 5:45 pm
Mr. Bush has gone around the Bend for
sure if he thinks that this is a good
idea! I am appalled !
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:23 am
[...] We were one of the first to come out swinging, highlighting our concerns. Writing on Valentine’s Day, we expressed our disbelieve like this: Today is significant. Not just because love is in the air. But because we find ourselves, for once, agreeing fully with Sen. Chuck Schumer. How can this be? [...]
February 23rd, 2006 at 10:52 am
Would someone explain to me why we can’t/don’t take care of our OWN business?
Can’t we do it better, care more, be more watchful than anyone else?
Don’t we have companies of our OWN? You know, we as American citizens are not told what is going on, Somehow, it goes by us in the daily work of living.
STOP THE SELLOUT, AMERICANS WILL DIE!
We should and CAN take care of our own security, our own people, our oown well being better than anyone else!!!
Our borders to the north and to the south are open enough,
Now we opening doors to the east too?
My answer is: HELL NO!!!
February 26th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
[...] Our readers know that we’ve covered this story quite actively. In fact, we were one of the first bloggers to come out swinging against the deal, but we have since changed our opinion. And that’s where we stand. [...]
March 6th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
[...] Anybody wonder why PM Tony Blair isn’t worried? Why others in Europe aren’t crying out foul? After all, it’s not like their ports aren’t “at risk,” too. [...]
March 8th, 2006 at 11:58 pm
[...] On Feb 14, the first day (and as one of the first bloggers) that we reported on this story, even though we initially came out against it, our post highlighted the fact that P&O was a British company being acquired by a UAE business, and we even provided maps highlighting P&O’s operations throughout Europe, managing some of the major ports there. So, why indeed have we not heard a peep from the UK? Maybe because they see things differently, which by no means indicates their not tough on terrorism. [...]
March 25th, 2007 at 6:19 am
viagra…
sou icuro…
March 28th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
cheap butalbital…
xkautozo hqeoge…
April 5th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
celexa…
ouxotq oituhevk…
May 10th, 2008 at 5:04 am
503d0067928c…
503d0067928c4ffa972b…