California Conservative

Three Ohio men trained by al-Qaeda with links to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi were indicted today on terrorism charges of planning attacks overseas to try to kill U.S. and coalition soldiers in Iraq and other countries, as well as for planning to assassinate Pres. Bush. The three men all lived in Toledo within the last year. The recruitment of the men took place overseas and not in the U.S. All three also were charged with conspiring to give materials and support for carrying out the killing of U.S. nationals.

The 3 men are: Mohammad Zaki Amawi, a citizen of Jordan and the U.S. Marwan Othman El-Hindi, a U.S. citizen born in Jordan; Wassim I. Mazloum, who came to the U.S. from Lebanon in 2000.

US officials said the detection of these treasonists are credited to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the President’s Surveillance program. This coupled with the successful thwarting of terrorist attacks in 2002 planned on Los Angeles, CA and other American cities buttresses not only the success of, but the need for such surveillance programs.

Enter, US Port dilemma.

Perhaps unknown to many is that a private British company, the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O) manages major ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. They describe their services this way:

P&O Ports is one of the world’s pre-eminent container terminal operators and stevedores, with 29 container terminals and logistics operations in over 100 ports, P&O Ports has a presence in 19 countries across the world. Its main service is containerised cargo handling based on long term concessions to operate terminals in ports which offer strong growth opportunities. Other services include: general cargo, bulk cargo, roll on-roll off facilities and cruise passenger terminal management. The company also provides specialist maritime services to industry and government as P&O Maritime Services.

P&O Ports is committed to achieving profit growth by increasing scale organically through local trade growth and market share gain at existing locations, by expanding current capacity, by developing and acquiring new terminals and by improving the efficiency of its container terminal operations through sharing best practice.

Now a United Arab Emirates(UAE)-owned company called Dubai Ports World is buying the London company, which will put Dubai Ports World in charge of the U.S. ports.

The United Arab Emirates is a constitutional federation of seven emirates; Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Sharjah, Ajman, Umm al-Qaiwain, Ras al-Khaimah and Fujairah. The federation was formally established on 2 December 1971.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) occupies an area of 83,000 sq km along the south-eastern tip of the Arabian Peninsula. Qatar lies to the west, Saudi Arabia to the south and west, and Oman to the north and east. The capital and the largest city of the federation, Abu Dhabi, is located in the emirate of the same name.

The United Arab Emirates, one of the world’s fastest growing tourist destinations, has all the right ingredients for an unforgettable holiday, sun, sand, sea, sports, unbeatable shopping, top-class hotels and restaurants, an intriguing traditional culture, and a safe and welcoming environment.

The U.S. Committee on Foreign Investments has approved a pending contract with the state-controlled Dubai Ports World of the United Arab Emirates to manage U.S. sea ports. The White House is backing the contract.

President Bush today offered this explanation is defense of the contract:

“I want to address…..this issue of a company out of the UAE purchasing the right to manage some ports in the United States from a British company. First of all, this is a private transaction. But it — according to law, the government is required to make sure this transaction does not, in any way, jeopardize the security of the country. And so people responsible in our government have reviewed this transaction.

The transaction should go forward, in my judgment. If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward. The company has been cooperative with the United States government. The company will not manage port security. The security of our ports will be — continue to be managed by the Coast Guard and Customs. The company is from a country that has been cooperative in the war on terror, been an ally in the war on terror. The company operates ports in different countries around the world, ports from which cargo has been sent to the United States on a regular basis.

I think it sends a terrible signal to friends around the world that it’s okay for a company from one country to manage the port, but not a country that plays by the rules and has got a good track record from another part of the world can’t manage the port.” (full transcript)

President Bush is vowing to veto any legislation that opposes the port contract.

The UAE has been accused of “ties” to two 9/11 terrorists, but the connotation is not necessarily valid. The US, after all, is where the 9/11 terrorists learned to fly, lived in hotels and used the US as an interface to pull of their plots. It could be argued that the US has ties to the 9/11 terrorists as well. However, what is troubling is that the UAE was a key transfer point for shipments of nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya and was one of only 3 nations that had recognized the Taliban as Afghanistan’s legitimate government.

There are two main trains of thought in this regard. One is the most obvious, that contracting port security to an Arab emirate has the potential to make US ports vulnerable to terrorism. The other, that the UAE is a trustworthy ally in the war against terror and has not given reason for doubt. What’s fully confusing is that the usual politically sure fire way of determining which side of an issue to take has been obliterated: Democrats suddenly care about national security in a convincing way, and without directly criticising the President (this from a party who blamed Pres. Bush for Hurricane Katrina). Republicans are joining with Democrats against the White House’s support of the contract, and most significantly the President seems willing to take a risk regarding national security.

In light of the Ann Coulter “raghead” comment, with sentiment insisting her sweeping generalization of Muslims is wrong and condemnable, and considering that rioting Muslims in protest of the Mohammed cartoons are being called not mainstream Islam but fanatics only, it’s ironic that US politicians and citizens are jumping on the bandwagon to condemn ALL ARABS as potential terrorists. How, then, can US/Japanese deternment in America during WWII be condemned? Is it not the same principle of punishing a whole race (or religion) based on the actions of a few? It is wisest to alienate our Arab allies which are not easy to come by?

Perhaps the biggest obstacle in these unfolding events is in dealing with a perceived threat; perception based on experience, experience based on relentless evil wrapped in the guise of religion. Perhaps the lesson we need to learn is that Political Correctness is a trap that weilds both hypocrisy and confusion, and that it facilitates the endeavors of those hiding under the benefits of democracy while seeking to destroy it.

Cross-posted at Amy’s Blog

This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 22nd, 2006 at 7:56 am and is filed under Author: Amy Proctor, Homeland Security, Middle East, Terrorism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.