I am of the opinion that new posts should not happen faster than new comments.
I don't actually know if this is true, but I assume we've got some readers who aren't following all the comments. While it did seem a little odd putting up yet another post, I figured a serious new factual issue belonged on the front page rather than buried around comment 100.
Or, in other words, I'm still figuring out how to drive this thing. (or at least some small fraction of it.)
Lots of blogs don't have like 100 comments per thread, anyway.
Careful LB. Considered, nuanced thinking is how people come to be known as flip-floppers.
I usually do read all of the comments, but I hadn't tackled this thread yet.
The most deeply disturbing tihing I heard on NPR today was Bush's justification of his action. He said, "My government has taken all ..." (emphasis mine). You know, every year the Queen of England makes a speech prepared by the Prime Minister and the party in power in which she outlines the policy agenda for the coming year. "My government will modernize the House of Lords," or "My government will take stepstp tackle youth truancy." "My goverment" is the language of a monarch, and --although I should have known this before--it really does seem that Bush sees himself in kingly terms. Commander-in-chief seems to be just another word for king.
I agree that this is a better basis for objecting to the deal, although I don't yet think it's a sufficient basis. From what I've heard of Dubai, there's still a continuum of shady to aboveboard financial practice.
(When my SO was there in early January, he talked to a freelance PR rep who tried to cash a check for a job she'd done for an Important Family. The check bounced, but the bank refused to contact the Important Family; the PR rep was basically told to wait because her money was less important than the peace of mind of the scatterbrained wealthy. That just doesn't seem like a transparent business environment.)
However, I would guess that a ginormous multinational like DPW would probably pass paperwork scrutiny, given its track record around the world. I also doubt that DPW's competition, that Singapore-based company, would be significantly easier to force to reveal paperwork.
I also doubt that DPW's competition, that Singapore-based company, would be significantly easier to force to reveal paperwork.
That's why I was bitching about the terms of the deal. You can get at paperwork maintained in the US by US citizens without much trouble regardless of the ownership of the company; once it's overseas, it's a different ball game.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE are really bizarre societies with no transparency and enormous slush funds of oil rents. Family connections are everything and law isn't much of anything. And they have had al Qaeda connections.
Contempt for law, and everything the rule of law implies and requires, is what I'm sure you and I find most infuriating about just about everything this administration does.
8. Well, that's a more specific demand that people concerned about this deal could be making. Or could have been making, perhaps: the political furor over this deal may have gone beyond a reasonable renegotiation by now.
Given that specific problem, and the nature of the parties involved (Bush administration, Middle Eastern oil barony) I think it's fair to ask that the deal be shaken upsidedown until everything falls out of its pockets. I don't have anything else specific to complain about, but I don't have the knowledge to, and this has been done quickly and without all the required review.
The tip of a general vote of no-confidence? Okay. But, God, I wish it had happened over detainee abuse or something.
Yeah, really. Part of me is very glad to see this discussed, but part of me is thinking, "Now? Now you decide to grow a collective pair of balls?"
It's the security thing. This is the first time there's a nice clear story where the administration is doing something weird that can't be spun as "We're just trying to keep you safe," and can, easily although unfairly, be spun as "We really don't give a damn."
Oops, LB. My comment was not directed at this post in specific. I was merely noting a general trend that prevents me from keeping up with Unfogged anymore. This post, specifically, is very good.
Of course, you interpreted my comment just as any reasonable person would. My bad.
And is clearly intentional. They get away with a lot of stuff using the "Come on, wars(disaster response, keeping track of whether you've laid off all the researchers at a lab you're going to want to use for a photo op later in the week) are just hard! The fact that you expected this to go well shows how little you know about the real difficulties!" defense. That one just isn't applicable to this situation.
On document issues: "I should expect, without direct experience, that UAE is closer to Thailand than to Great Britain on this scale.)"
That seems a fair point in general; whether there are relevant documents that would be stored in Dubai and not at the actual port, I have no idea, but it's certainly a valid question to ask. I'm fairly vague at what such a document might be that it would be relevant to security of the port, and stored in Dubia, but not at the port itself, but I certainly can't say such documents couldn't possibly exist.
"I am of the opinion that new posts should not happen faster than new comments."
It's always driven me crazy that posts at Unfogged don't have time-stamps, but many things that aren't my responsibility drive me crazy. This is why everyone should simply obey my orders unquestioningly.
9: "And they have had al Qaeda connections."
So have some fifty-plus countries, including the U.S. Also, many countries once had communist connections, and even communist parties. This is always significant and worrisome.
12: "I think it's fair to ask that the deal be shaken upsidedown until everything falls out of its pockets."
That seems like it would be absolutely fine, and why not? But have you considered the foreign policy and world-wide image implications? Do you think that Muslims worldwide are apt to say "why, yes, of course, the U.S. should fly into an uproar when some of their port operations are transferred from a non-majority-Muslim country to a majority-Muslim country"?
I'm not saying that no questions should be asked because of such considerations, of course. I'm simply pointing out that what might seem like harmless "let's wait and double-check, why not?" acts will, in fact, have a downside. Not to mention that we have huge military assets in Dubai, and in other Muslim lands; how much more eager this will make such governments quick to grant us such favors, and how much more good will this will generate, and how that will bite us in the ass in the future is unclear. Re-emphasis: not a reason to not look carefully -- just a reason to note that it's hardly cost-free.
"I don't have anything else specific to complain about, but I don't have the knowledge to, and this has been done quickly and without all the required review."
It hasn't been done with all the required review? Cite? This isn't the confusion about the alleged requirement for it to take 45 days, which isn't true, is it? I certainly can believe it's something else, that I've missed; I don't claim to be a world authority on this deal and its issues.
Gary, you really are being a Mariah Carey. (There. You forced me to say it.)
The UAE's high-level connections with the Taliban and al-Qaeda are far, far more significant than Germany's. So are Saudi Arabia's.
Wait a minute... Gary, do you own stock in DPW, or what?
On a substantive note, I think it's a little unfair to defend a failure to completely vet a business/political transaction because it would be potentially bad PR. Besides, if the price of basing our military assets in Dubai is special laissez-faire treatment, well, I won't say it's not worth it, but that's kind of gross.
This isn't the confusion about the alleged requirement for it to take 45 days, which isn't true, is it?
I may be, and almost certainly am, behind you on the facts of this story, but I was not aware that this was false. My understanding is that The Byrd Amendment to the Exon Florio Provision requires such an investigation in the case where:
the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government; and
the acquisition "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."
This isn't an area in which I have great expertise. I assume from your words, that there is a strong argument that the Byrd Amendment doesn't apply to this deal of which I am unaware, or that the reporting I've read that such an investigation was not done, has, to your knowledge, been reliably contradicted. Which is it?
But have you considered the foreign policy and world-wide image implications?
You know, in the world we live in where we have hundreds of Muslims locked up and being ill-treated (to say the least) in Guantanamo for, in many cases, no good reason other than their nationality, and I don't have any idea how many within Iraq of whom the same could be said, I doubt that this is going to have all that significant a further effect on what Muslims worldwide think of us.
"Wait a minute... Gary, do you own stock in DPW, or what?"
Yes, I get my share from the Jewish control of world banks, which controls all such companies. It's why I'm so wealthy.
"I think it's a little unfair to defend a failure to completely vet a business/political transaction because it would be potentially bad PR."
It probably would be, so I'm glad I didn't do that.
22, LB: "This isn't an area in which I have great expertise. I assume from your words, that there is a strong argument that the Byrd Amendment doesn't apply to this deal of which I am unaware, or that the reporting I've read that such an investigation was not done, has, to your knowledge, been reliably contradicted. Which is it?"
IANAL, but this seems entirely clear to me: "Any investigation is required to end within 45 days."
What does "within" mean? Does it mean "must not end before"? Is it ever intended to take such meaning? (Sorry, that's three questions with nothing in between them; and this is not an attempt to make a snotty parenthetical remark; I'm just shy about asking three questions in a row now.)
the world we live in where we have hundreds of Muslims locked up and being ill-treated
So the argument here is, we're pissing off plenty of Muslims. What's a few more?
It seems if we're going to make Guantánamo the moral standard, then pretty much anything goes. I've heard this argument too many times, and it surprises me to see it creeping into this discussion.
"...or that the reporting I've read that such an investigation was not done, has, to your knowledge, been reliably contradicted."
Huh? Of course the investigation was completed. I've already cited at least six articles mentioning it, and every non-op-ed piece of reporting has been perfectly clear about it. Here, for instance: "The decision was made by an interagency committee led by Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert M. Kimmitt. The group included officials from 12 departments and agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Justice, State and Homeland Security, as well as the National Security Council and the National Economic Council." That's the "Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States ("CFIUS"), an inter-agency committee chaired by the Secretary of Treasury," that you just cited.
IANAL, but this seems entirely clear to me: "Any investigation is required to end within 45 days."
Here, I'm going to pull the IAAL card, and say that you're reading the provision naively. The limited point you're making, that you don't necessarily need to use the whole 45 days, is a fair one, but irrelevant. The provision clearly calls for some extra level of investigation triggered by the quoted language, which is to take no more than 45 days, and can thus be referred to as the 45-day-investigation. It's not possible to tell from just the page I linked exactly what this extra level of investigation entails, but the reporting I've read clearly claims (not saying that it couldn't be wrong, but that the claim is clear) that this extra investigation was not done. Not that it was completed too swiftly, but that it was not done.
For example, the article you linked characterized what I am talking about as "an additional 45 day review" and states that it did not take place, although it seems to misstate the standard necessary to trigger such a review.
It seems if we're going to make Guantánamo the moral standard, then pretty much anything goes.
I very much did not mean to make it the moral standard -- I meant to say that that sort of thing really overshadows any other PR considerations. If a policy is a good idea, staying away from it because it's bad PR in the Muslim world doesn't seem likely to do us much good in light of what else we're doing.
If a policy is a good idea, staying away from it because it's bad PR in the Muslim world doesn't seem likely to do us much good in light of what else we're doing.
[standing corrected]
I agree with that statement. But I'm still bothered by the bad PR thing. What if we piss off the Danes at the same time? That sounds easy enough...
"The provision clearly calls for some extra level of investigation triggered by the quoted language, which is to take no more than 45 days, and can thus be referred to as the 45-day-investigation."
I don't read that it "clearly calls for some extra level of investigation triggered by the quoted language." I read that it says:
Once CFIUS has received a complete notification, it begins a thorough review of the notified transaction. In some cases, it is necessary to undertake an extended review or "investigation." An investigation, if necessary, must begin no later than 30 days after receipt of a notice. Any investigation is required to end within 45 days."Not that it was completed too swiftly, but that it was not done."
Yes, there was no such "extended" review, just the normal review. What should have triggered the "in some cases" to mean this case, and the "extended review"?
I'm very possibly not understanding what you mean by "triggered by the quoted language," because, in fact, I don't understand what you mean by that, I'm afraid.
To be a bit more specific, the article from the NY Times I previously cited notes: "An objection from any member of the interagency committee would have started, as required by law, an additional 45-day review."
And there was no such objection. So why would there have been the additional 45-day review? The required 30-day review was completed.
At risk of getting ahead of LB's answer to my questions in 31 and 32, LB's original statement in 12 was not, say, "I think there should be have been an extended review because I don't trust Bush appointees to do an adequate job in the 30-day review," which would be an inarguable statement, but rather was "I don't have anything else specific to complain about, but I don't have the knowledge to, and this has been done quickly and without all the required review."
My question in 31 and 32 and previous was, to be absolutely clear, not "why would you prefer an extended review?," but "why was the extended, 45-day, review, required by law"?
Triggered by the language I quoted in my 22, which requires the additional 45-day-review (which, I agree, need not take the full 45 days. I'm just calling it that to distinquish it from the intial review) in cases where (1) the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government (which is the case in this transaction), and (2) the acquisition "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S." (which is also the case in this transaction. See, e.g., the article published in the Guardian and linked in my post, noting that the deal requires DPW to cooperate with Homeland Security, a requirement which would be meaningless unless its behavior had security implications.) While the article you linked in 26 correctly states that the reason no such 45-day investigation (again, just a name) was done was that no committee member called for it, it does not point out that under the terms of the Byrd Amendment (linked in 22) and the facts of the case, they were obliged to call for it, and were in violation of their obligations by not doing so.
If your position is that the 45-day-review was not called for because there were no national security implications of the deal, I disagree as a matter of fact. If you think that the provision I quoted in 22 leaves it within the committee's discretion whether to call for the review whether or not there are national security implications of the deal, you are mistaken as a matter of statutory interpretation.
34 directly to 31, although it should cover 32 and 33 as well.
LB, 34: Okay, without quoting, I'm following your argument and point now. It's that Section 837(a) "requires an investigation in cases where [...] the acquisition "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."
The key would seem to revolve around whether this case "could" so result. I certainly see your case that this is such a case. That seems an entirely fair argument, and a perfectly reasonable understanding. I can also understand and see that a lawyer for the Administration could argue that, due to the specifics here, for certain reasons [lawyer would fill in the points here that are to me merely hypothetical], this is not such a case and it "couldn't" so affect.
Since I have no idea if such a case for the defense could be made, and wouldn't care to offer one, I'll accept your interpretation as controlling, and stipulate, absent further information, that you are right and correct. Thank you for explaining.
See, it's not hard at all to win an argument with me when you're right. :-)
No problem. And I should say that knowing before I say something that I'm going to have to argue with you about it almost certainly increases the chance that I am going to be right. Which, you know, is meant as a compliment. Keeping me honest and all.
it's not hard at all to win an argument with me when you're right.
That's bullshit, Gary.
"That's bullshit, Gary."
I don't recognize the visual reference, I'm afraid. I'm going to assume this is intended to be a ha-ha, not a "you're an asshole."
39 -- 'Postropher is referring to a Monty Python sketch called "The Argument Clinic", implying that it would be fun to get into a contradictory back-and-forth with you.
You assume correctly. It had no particular meaning.
Aside from what Osner said. A circular reference to arguing purely for the sake of arguing, which is what I was doing in 38.
Anyways all you fuckers should be banned for violating the cardinal tenet of Unfogged discussion, no reference to Monty Python or Seinfeld. (I'm in the clear cause I was just trying to clean up after the mess 'Postropher made.)
the cardinal tenet of Unfogged discussion
No it isn't.
See there you go again. Why not mention the episode where Jerry discovers the chef at Kramer's pizzeria going to the bathroom and failing to wash his hands while you're at it?
"...Monty Python sketch called 'The Argument Clinic'...."
Oh, I'm perfectly familiar with that sketch. I just didn't recognize Cleese and Palin in that tiny picture, and so didn't pick up that that was the reference.
I am so familiar with the sketch!
42: "A circular reference to arguing purely for the sake of arguing, which is what I was doing in 38."
You were not!
46: "(I'm in the clear cause I was just trying to clean up after the mess 'Postropher made.)"
Yadda yadda yadda.
[delurk]
If you're interested in some more circumstantial evidence on the DPW/UAE thing, check out one of our contributor's posts...there's some evidence that some of this is about oil/natural gas access.
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/2/21/191151/369
[/delurk]
Please return to your normally scheduled high quality programming.
No wonder the Democratic party can't get its shit together, what with all these wishy-washy liberals who change their minds every 24 hours.
"...check out one of our contributor's posts...."
Done. It starts out quoting not a reputable source, but some person who apparently isn't even worth naming, opining on DailyKos. This is not a good start at credibility. The DK person proceeds to make unsubstantiated claims that are equally true of the previous ownership of Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company:
They did not conduct background checks on senior managers of the company, nor did they ask how the company screens its own employees. You know, just in case a terrorist wants to infiltrate the company that now has unprecedented and unfettered access to our ports. More below...How is shifting from ownership of one foreign company to another "unprecedented"? "Unfettered" is blatantly false. What sort of "background checks on senior managers" should have been run, and was this a concern when it was a British company? What would stop the Dubai company from switching managers next month? Should there be a requirement that all managers of companies doing business in the U.S. have background checks? How often? Who should administer them? Etc. Same old same old.
Then we're informed that a question has extra credibility because it was asked by Les Kinsolving.
I don't think I need to waste any more time on the DK post after that.
The post you link to heads its link "Bush Administration Sells Port Security To Highest Foreign Bidder."
That's false.
"As soon as I saw this story, my paranoia kicked into high gear. This awarded contract was not just boneheaded, it seemed to be criminally negligent or as some on the lefty talk radio called it, treason."
Yeah, okay, I quit out there. I'm interested in facts, not adjectives. Sorry.
Okay, and the rest of the post seems to be the startling revelation that the UAE has huge natural gas deposits. Who knew?
The dire conclusion?
So, again to be blunt, by awarding multi-billion dollar contracts to the UAE, the US is accomplishing at least two things. * Propping up the UAE's ability to produce oil and buy natural gas from Qatar to keep that oil flowing.
* Cementing good geopolitical relations with the governments of the fourth and fifth largest holders of natural gas reserves in the world. I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you.
Clearly, this proves that the U.S. government is interested in having good relations with energy-producing countries. Film at 11. I say we start bombing now.
"And they have had al Qaeda connections."
So have some fifty-plus countries, including the U.S. Also, many countries once had communist connections, and even communist parties.
Uh, our Al Qaeda connection is Al Qaeda traveled within our borders and then flew some planes into our skyscrapers. One of UAE's Al Qaeda connection is that large numbers of their ruling families have been the head of Al Qaeda's personal guests. Seems like a rather significant difference.
Compare and contrast the endless repetition of line that Dubai had "ties" to terrorists and that Bad Money went through their banks (years ago) (heavens, the financial center of the Mideast actually had money go through its hands; deeply incriminating, that; I bet that Hambali used the Indonesian postal service on occasion; mustn't let Indonesians operate in America due to Indonesia's "ties to terrorists") with a fact-based, knowledgeable blog post.
Interesting facts:
In December 2004, the Dubai company purchased the port business of the American rail company CSX for just over $1 billion.That's DP World, the company we're talking about. The reason there was no vast outcry was? Rail transit isn't strategic? We don't have liquid natural gas (LNG), which is immensely combustible/explosive, tanker cars running back and forth? CSX doesn't run zillions of tanker cars of a long list of immensely toxic chemicals back and forth every day? Evil Dark-Skinned Infiltrators couldn't do Their Evil just as much as at ports? Probably the fact that Coast Guard runs security at ports, but not on the railways means we're safer? I dunno, maybe somone can explain it to me.
The loser in the bidding for Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation was PSA International of Singapore. There are no Muslims in Singapore? In surrounding Malaysia? Would there have been identical concern as there is with Frightening Arabs? Somehow I suspect not.
DP World of Dubai has been running ports around the world since 1999; the number of terrorist incidents has been?
If we want to worry about port security -- and we should -- here's a wacky idea: let's worry about port security. As in, give the Coast Guard more money. Mandate that a higher percentage of containers be inspected. Mandate higher international standards for ownership of shipping lines. Etc.
Or we could get hysterical about Ay-rabs. Because we can't trust them types, you know.
It seems to me that comments like 53 should contain links.
Update to the post (when was this made? Impossible to tell): "Investigators are looking at shipping documents to that end. (Via digby, who I can't say enough admiring things about.)"
Digby quotes Parry. Parry direly says "This tracking ability also might demonstrate whether UAE port supervisors have the requisite skills for protecting U.S. ports from terrorist penetration."
UAE port supervisors won't be working in U.S. ports. Next?
Parry doesn't even bother to establish that Dubai Port World is the operator of the relevant UAE port. He doesn't even bother to specify which UAE port he is talking about. He doesn't even bother to specify which Emirate he is referring to. What the hell, all these people are alike. Who needs useless specifics? All we need to know is that it's "UAE authorities."
More Parry: "This businessman said bigger factors in the decision to turn the U.S. ports over to the UAE were financial – post-9/11 security precautions had eroded the profitability of the port operations and the UAE was one of the few countries with sufficient resources to invest almost $7 billion to take over the U.S. ports."
The fact that this was a bidding war for ownership of the Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation company, and that it was the board of P.& O who awarded the winning bid, not at all the U.S. government? Irrelevant. Not even worth mentioning. Best to imply -- but not state outright, because that would be a direct falsehood -- that somehow it was the U.S. government that made this decision.
I wonder why Parry winds up posting on his own website (which is what "Consortium News" is, if you haven't noticed)? Is he a completely unreliable reporter who should automatically be disbelieved? No, not at all. Sometimes he unearths useful facts. Is he someone who should automatically be trusted as a terrific source? Up to you to decide.
In recent times, the dread MSM has taken a lot of completely justified flack for misuse and overuse of unnamed sources. Of late, they're mostly doing a better job of at least explaining in each case why the source is not being named, and what the source's interest might be. In this sort of Parry's?
Four paragraphs of paraphrases from "One international businessman."
Very convincing, that. The reason he couldn't go on record? Unknown. Did he make misleading statements that Parry then presented? Yes, he did, as I just described. Credibility factor of this Dire Viewing With Alarm? You decide. Relevance factor of "UAE authorities" to the managment of Dubai Port World? Unknown.
How much more am I alarmed? Not so much.
Tell me, if we're going to worry about Gulf natives doing sabotage, don't we have rather more to worry about in regards to their sabotaging pipelines and ports in, you know, the Arabian Gulf? Where maybe it might be easier than in America? Maybe they -- you know, "they," "the terrorists," would find it easier to, if they are from Dubai, to infiltrate Dubai, where we've recently had the revelation that a chunk of the world's natural gas comes from? Maybe they might find it easier to infiltrate Saudi Arabia or Qatar or Kuwait?
Nah, let's not worry about that. Let's worry about far more far-fetched worries. That's always the way to go.
Incidentally, could we please stop talk about companies acquiring "ports"? That doesn't happen. We're talking about leases on shipping terminals, not buying or leasing ports. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, for instance, is not being leased; some terminals are, and security on them is run by the U.S. Coast Guard, plus Customs, and Border Patrol, all Department of Homeland Security, and the people who handle the cargo are U.S. union stevedores. Not Arab furriners. I'm still unclear what sort of security-related records are going to be shipped to Dubai and the American copies destroyed so they can't be checked, but if that's a question, sure, let's get it answered.
Bottom line: I'd like to see increased focus on container security, and on shipping lines. The corporate HQ of the leaser of the terminal? Not so much a concern.
But if I were a terrorist, I'd pick a zillion targets already in the U.S., like a nice LNG storage area, or, well, I suppose I shouldn't give anyone ideas, although any half-smart terrorist would already have a perfectly good idea of what are highly strategic relatively soft targets. I'm not even clear what we're supposed to be so worried about being smuggled into the country, beyond the theoretical nuclear device from I'm not sure where (North Korea? Iran? Pakistan? A former Russian device?). Christ, when was the last time anyone even set off a goddamned car bomb in this country? Is that beyond al Qaeda's masterminds? They can't even get five guys to start sniping a la the that guy and his teen ally a few years ago? Is there some rational fear involved somewhere in all this?
It seems to me that comments like 53 should contain links.
I find especially amusing the statements by the officials at the cite at Tom Tomorrow's place.
"Persian Gulf state officials cast doubt on the reports. "People go hunting in Pakistan. They don't go to Afghanistan," said Adel al-Jubeir, foreign policy advisor to Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah. Similarly, the UAE's Alsadoosi said he did "not recall" any Afghan hunting trips made by Sheik Mohammed."
They "don't recall." I bet.
Just for kicks, how about some "who's your buddy" trivia. Only three governments ever recognized the Taliban as the legitimate rulers of Afghanistan. All three are so called "allies." Two of them are Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
Anyone like to guess who the third is? I hear they run a mean shipping terminal.
I'm still unclear what sort of security-related records are going to be shipped to Dubai and the American copies destroyed so they can't be checked, but if that's a question, sure, let's get it answered.
Quick access to information is a rather key part of law enforcement. What especially raises a red flag for me is that typically the requirement to keep copies on U.S. soil is the standard. That this is an exception indicates this was aquiesence to a request made by DPW. That's not indicative of a company with a priority on transparency and cooperation with law enforcement.
I'm not even clear what we're supposed to be so worried about being smuggled into the country, beyond the theoretical nuclear device from I'm not sure where (North Korea? Iran? Pakistan? A former Russian device?). Christ, when was the last time anyone even set off a goddamned car bomb in this country? Is that beyond al Qaeda's masterminds?
Uh, perhaps certain people who might raise a red flag if they went through the normal channels? Large amounts of conventional explosives? You can't just wander down to the hardware store and buy large amounts of TNT. Maybe a surface to air missile?
"Ties with terrorists" means "went to Afghanistan and hobnobbed with al Qaeda and the Taliban".
And yes, that was in the past. Not this very minute.
Almost everything we know about was in the past! Some people say, everything.
Yes, some money that went to al Qaeda passed through the UAE financial center. Other al Qaeda money originated in the UAE, as did some al Qaeda terrorists.
Yeah, just like Germany.
If you want to make a coherent argument, do it. Or if you want to throw every single kitchen-sink quibble and gotcha you can dream up at us, you can keep on doing that too.
Thanks gswift. See, now that's some actual information (albeit a little muddled) which could be cause for concern. Now, if this crown prince had a position on the board (which he may), I might worry, but I haven't seen anyone allege that he does.
By the way, here's the top management of DPW. They all look pretty professional to me.
Parry doesn't even bother to establish that Dubai Port World is the operator of the relevant UAE port. He doesn't even bother to specify which UAE port he is talking about.
Well, let's see. "UAE officials had been unable to track what happened to the van after its arrival in Dubai."
Now considering the was traced to Dubai, and that Dubai Port World is a state owned company, it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume they run the port.
Now, if this crown prince had a position on the board (which he may), I might worry, but I haven't seen anyone allege that he does.
It seems a rather non trivial point to be reiterated here is that DPW is a state owned company.
By the way, here's the top management of DPW. They all look pretty professional to me.
Jesus. They "look professional."
Why didn't I think of that? All this time I could have set my mind at ease by looking at pictures of managment.
The U.A.E is a haven for more than oil money. It is a major center for laundering money from the drug trade through Afghanistan and Pakistan. Furthermore, its leading Emirs have ties with some pretty unsavory characters. One of the biggest drug lords (and active sponsor of terrorist activity) in the region was an honored guest in Dubai until sometime after 9/11 when he moved to Pakistan.
It is not surprising that they "lost" track of the van. They have routinely refused to cooperate, or extradite criminals involved in terrorist and smuggling related activity.
Somewhere above Jackmormon tells a story about the way the Leading Families of the UAE get away with ignoring the law.
Incidentally, I think of "The Maltese Falcon" all the time when this type of thing comes up. I think that Sidney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre would function very well in the UAE or Saudi Arabia.
There used to be a theory that some functions were inherently governmental; some tasks which were properly the job solely of government.
Some were jobs where answering directly to the electorate is good; where a dissatisfied citizen should be able to call up their elected representative and bitch. I don't want my congresswoman to say "I'm sorry, that's an environmental protection matter, it's run by Profits-R-Us, you'll have to talk to them."
Others were jobs where you wouldn't want to take the risk of disruption because of the vagaries of business. I'd really hate to see a headline such as "secured creditors of US Navy Inc. today seized 4 nuclear submarines, with their nuclear missiles, and will sell them at auction to pay their claims"
Should ports maybe be run directly by our government? Ports do seem like natural monopolies, and those have always been heavily and closely regulated. Such regulation would seem like the minimum one should expect, and I don't know that it is happenning. Do we have a powerful and effective ports Regulation Commission?
"Should ports maybe be run directly by our government?"
I have an idea! We could set up a semi-independent authority, authorized by, perhaps, multiple states, and give it quasi-governmental powers, but also some powers of a corporation. We could split the appointing power to the board that runs it between the states, and perhaps the relevant large cities that it operates in.
Maybe we could also give it an amazing amount of control over other transit issues, including highways and bridges.
And after some guy runs the whole shebang from behind the scenes for several years, I could write a fucking huge biography of him and win a Pulitzer Prize for it.
Think that puppy could fly?
Does any of this sound familiar, by the way? Or this?
How about Kevin? His final point:
I just want to make something super clear here. If jumping on the Dubai hysteria bandwagon merely hurt George Bush politically and prompted some additional interest in port security, I'd be all for it. What do I care if the DPW/P&O deal goes through? But the whole thing feeds on a mindless anti-Arab jingoism that's genuinely dangerous, and that's why I'm not joining the fun unless I hear some really good reasons for doing so. As liberals, we're either serious about engaging with the Muslim world in a sensible, non-hysterical way or we're not. Which is it?But, as they say, read the whole thing.
Of course, more recently he refers to "the toxic stew of cherry picking, half truths, and outright misrepresentations currently being used to demonize the UAE as a virtual arm of al-Qaeda."
65--I did. And my So described a bar he went to as reminding him of the Cantina scene in Star Wars IV. And an analyst on NPR this afternoon compared Dubai to Istanbul during WWII. But internal economic conditions these days will not necessarily mirror that nation's international dealings. This is why I'm all for LB's position that congress should hold out for creating a US-based paperwork archive.
here:
One example is the fact that DP World, P&O or their competitors would not actually run or manage the ports in the United States.Meanwhile, the comment I wrote with various links is "being held for moderation."
This talk of xenophobia and jingoism is really getting old.
Have none of you people on the "don't get hysterical" bandwagon ever travelled outside this country? Is it really a mystery here that a lot of countries don't play by our rules? Are you all really under the impression that there's any committment to government ransparency and the rule of law in the Middle East, Africa, etc.? The UAE is NOT a UK that just happens to be populated by Arabs.
This has nothing to do with them being Arab or Muslim. This has everything to do with the UAE being an opaque hereditary oligarchy in a part of the world where family and tribal loyalties trump all. The ruling families of said oligarchy hobnob with a known terrorist with a recent history of masterminding attacks on U.S. soil.
So just maybe it's not such a good fucking idea to let a state owned coporation of such a country help us manage a rather critical piece of our infrastructure.
Looks like the Port Authority of NY & NJ is breaking their lease to DPW:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/24/nyregion/24suit.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Somehow or other I think the price of doing business at the NY/NJ ports is going to rise, and soon...
Re: 56
Gary-
The point of the story in the update, which I suppose I should have made clearer, was not to impugn DPW's competence or good faith -- from my point of view, the fact that the story relates to the UAE is a coincidence. It was an attempt, rather, to illustrate exactly what sort of regular business documents constitute "security-related records", that we might like easy access to. Do I know they won't be maintained in the US? No, I don't know that. They might be. But the deal doesn't require them to be. I would like it to.
Somehow or other I think the price of doing business at the NY/NJ ports is going to rise, and soon...
I'm not at all sure you're right. I'm assuming you're basing your conclusion on a belief about the relative efficiency of capitalist markets versus government.
Sometimes capitalism and markets don't work very well at all. They tend to work well when there are a lot of independent producers, when barriers to entry into the market are low, where the consumer can easily get the information needed to make a rational choice, where the consumer pays all the costs of their choice rather than imposing some costs on others, etc. Otherwise they fail to produce the best products at the lowest prices.
I thought this had been learned more than 100 years ago. The way to make really big money is not to produce the best and cheapest product, but to control the market (e.g., Microsoft, Standard Oil, and US Steel).
Offhand, running a port looks like a classic example of where government, rather than private enterprise, will produce the best result. But I don't know enough to have a really informed opinion.
"running a port"
As I keep repeating: this deal is, despite what you've read, not about "running a port." Nobody has bought or leased, for instance, the right to "run the ports" of NYC or New Jersey, to to use one example. Terminals =/ port.
Datapoint that I'm sure everybody here has seen elsewhere by now: DPW participates in the Arab boycott of Israel. "US law bars firms from complying with such requests or cooperating with attempts by Arab governments to boycott Israel."
It\'s a very good site !! Very nice work, admin :) Good luck !
