Bush says-"People don't need to worry about security [Archive]

lawyerlee

02-23-2006, 09:51 AM

I'm not saying that there isn't some reason for concern, but it's hard to have any kind of reasonable discussion about what the REAL concerns are when people (not just on boards like this, but even the news media and government officals) are completely overplaying their hands. I'd love to hear, just once, a real media report that accurately describes what's happening and where the responsibilities lie w/out the fear mongering of "Arab country buying U.S. Ports".

karen
You seem to be suggesting that there is a meaningful difference between "buying US ports" and "buying the right to operate individual ports". First, I missed where anyone in this thread suggested otherwise. There are some very smart women in here. Second, what, exactly, is the meaning of that difference? How does it change one's concern? :confused: This is bad, regardless of the hair splitting one tries to do.

KarenS

02-23-2006, 09:53 AM

And, let's not forget that Saudi Arabia is our "friend" yet most of the hyjackers on Sept. 11 were from that country. Germany is our "friend" yet most of them lived in Germany for years to train before coming over to the U.S. Should we block all German port contracts as well?

Karen

KarenS

02-23-2006, 10:00 AM

You seem to be suggesting that there is a meaningful difference between "buying US ports" and "buying the right to operate individual ports". Of course there is a meaningful difference. Please note that in the following, capitalization is for emphasis, not because I'm yelling. :)

First of all, they're not operating the whole of any port. They're operating terminals within ports. For example, in the Port of NY, there are something like 6 terminals. 2 of them are managed by Chinese companies. One of them is managed by a Dutch company. I don't remember where the other two are managed from. ONE OF THEM is affected by the Dubai purchase of the British company that currently manages it.

Because they manage the operations of THAT TERMINAL doesn't mean that they still don't have to follow the safety rules and regulations of the Port as a whole. And the port, the land, and the equipment is still on U.S. soil, owned by U.S. interests - again, using the Port of NY as an example, the PORT is jointly owned by NY and NJ states. The Dubai shipping company will only lease a single terminal from that Port.

Scond, what, exactly, is the meaning of that difference? How does it change one's concern? It's as meaningful a difference as "I bought your house" vs. "I leased a room in your house".

Another way to look at it is to use an airport as an analogy. The airport is owned by the city, but the airlines lease the right to operate certain terminals. The airport security is still maintained by the owner of the airport and the federal government. The airlines only have the right to manage that one area that they lease. But they still have to comply with all the airport security rules and laws. They don't own the whole airport.

See the difference?

Karen

IrisHope

02-23-2006, 10:02 AM

Yeah, because things are so different now than before 9/11.

Asha

02-23-2006, 10:03 AM

thanks for pointing out the differences. of course, i wasn't getting the whole story as i was hearing it second hand from my dh who was hearing half truths from the media.

i still don't understand why we let countries who support terrorism conduct their business within the u.s.. i guess i didn't realize it was common practice for entire countries to do this except for the case of embassies or military bases.

allyray231

02-23-2006, 10:03 AM

ONE OF THEM is affected by the Dubai purchase of the British company that currently manages it.

One to me is too much

jnettie

02-23-2006, 10:04 AM

I understand your xenophobia point. But I think that's what's so weird about the whole issue. To a certain extent, we should be worried about Muslim theocracies having control over our ports, even if it is just the right to use or certain docks. They are not as well protected as you might think, and given the hubbub over those Danish cartoons, even moderate Muslims don't seem to make distinctions. There's xenophobia on both ends.

But, most of all, it's horribly hypocritical for Bush to say "people don't need to worry about security." He spends so much time tell us to keep our eyes open and remind us to watch out for terrorists. Now, suddenly we shouldn't worry?

I'm not one to jump in alarm. I don't agree with our Homeland Security laws. I hate the abuses that our government perpetrates in the name of protection against terrorism. But this just smacks of stupid.

ETA...personally, I'd prefer not to allow China to own any docks either, as I totally disagree with their stances on human rights and how they treat their citizens. I wish our country wouldn't do business with China at all. But that's not going to happen.

KarenS

02-23-2006, 10:07 AM

Also, another thing that is significant that is being overplayed:

This is not strictly a case of a Dubai shipping company coming in and purchasing U.S. property. The situation has been created because the Dubai company has bought the British company that formerly managed those ports - a company called P&O. So it's not like a UAE country just decided "hey let's buy some American ports".

And also, something else to keep in mind is that Dubai happens to be the second largest U.S. Navy port outside the U.S.

Karen

jnettie

02-23-2006, 10:09 AM

Germany is our "friend" yet most of them lived in Germany for years to train before coming over to the U.S. Should we block all German port contracts as well?

Karen
If the German government supported them, yes. But they didn't. Saudi Arabian royalty did support them, though. Not officially, but some Princes provided funds. That, to me, means that Saudia Arabia is not our friend.

KarenS

02-23-2006, 10:09 AM

I'd prefer not to allow China to own any docks either,Just a further clarification - the government of China does not own any docks. Chinese companies lease the terminals. The main difference in the Dubai issue is that the government of Dubai happens to hold a large interest in the company as well ... so it does complicate the issue.

ETA: As I read that over it might still not be clear. Chinese companies = companies in China, not companies run by the Chinese government. Just like, for example, Ford is an American company, but not the American government.

Karen

lawyerlee

02-23-2006, 10:15 AM

Of course there is a meaningful difference. Please note that in the following, capitalization is for emphasis, not because I'm yelling. :)

First of all, they're not operating the whole of any port. They're operating terminals within ports. For example, in the Port of NY, there are something like 6 terminals. 2 of them are managed by Chinese companies. One of them is managed by a Dutch company. I don't remember where the other two are managed from. ONE OF THEM is affected by the Dubai purchase of the British company that currently manages it.

Because they manage the operations of THAT TERMINAL doesn't mean that they still don't have to follow the safety rules and regulations of the Port as a whole. And the port, the land, and the equipment is still on U.S. soil, owned by U.S. interests - again, using the Port of NY as an example, the PORT is jointly owned by NY and NJ states. The Dubai shipping company will only lease a single terminal from that Port.

It's as meaningful a difference as "I bought your house" vs. "I leased a room in your house".

Another way to look at it is to use an airport as an analogy. The airport is owned by the city, but the airlines lease the right to operate certain terminals. The airport security is still maintained by the owner of the airport and the federal government. The airlines only have the right to manage that one area that they lease. But they still have to comply with all the airport security rules and laws. They don't own the whole airport.

See the difference?

Karen

I see why you might consider it different, but I highly disagree that I should feel less worried. We shouldn't be giving access to our ports, airports, or any other entry point to any foreign governments that don't cooperate in stopping terrorism. And that is a BIG distinction between Saudi Arabia and Germany.

KarenS

02-23-2006, 10:22 AM

I see why you might consider it different, See, it's not just that I "consider it different" but that it *is* different. Ownership of a port vs. a lease on the management of a terminal and still being required to follow US security measures are two completely different things.

We shouldn't be giving access to our ports, airports, or any other entry point to any foreign governments that don't cooperate in stopping terrorism. Right now the majority of our ports are managed by foreign interests. Dubai and the UAE is a political ally who has cooperated in seeking out terrorists. They have frozen assets of suspected terrorists. They're currently working with Canada on a task force to fight money laundering in support of terrorism. Dubai is the home of the second largest US Naval port in the world outside of the US.

Why are they being held to a different standard than any of our other allies?

Karen

jnettie

02-23-2006, 10:24 AM

With ports docks=terminals. That's why I changed from ports to docks.

Own, lease, rent, I don't care. I don't want to do business with Chinese anything. But that's my personal thing. Logically, I realize it's nearly impossible to do this, since nearly everything one owns these days is "made in China."

And, to continue your leasing a room in your house analogy...someone who's renting a room still has access to the kitchen.

allyray231

02-23-2006, 10:25 AM

Dubai and the UAE is a political ally

Sorry but this is a bunch of BS.

ETA--Bush may say they are an ally but I don't believe it.

CNN reports:
Critics of the deal have raised concerns about the company's status as a state-owned venture, accusing the UAE of having ties to terrorism. Two of the hijackers involved in the September 11, 2001, attacks came from the Persian Gulf country, and most of the money for the plot was funneled through the banking center of Dubai.

Critics also note that Dubai was a key transfer point for illicit nuclear technology sales to North Korea, Iran and Libya that were led by Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/23/port.security/index.html

lawyerlee

02-23-2006, 10:26 AM

See, it's not just that I "consider it different" but that it *is* different. Ownership of a port vs. a lease on the management of a terminal and still being required to follow US security measures are two completely different things.
The access it potentially provides wrongdoers is exactly the same. Terrorists don't exactly care about rules, now do they?

KarenS

02-23-2006, 10:26 AM

Sorry but this is a bunch of BS.Why? I gave you reasons to back it up. Why do you think it's a "bunch of BS" other than xenophobia?

karen

allyray231

02-23-2006, 10:27 AM

See the ETA to my post

KarenS

02-23-2006, 10:29 AM

Quoting two different people:

And, to continue your leasing a room in your house analogy...someone who's renting a room still has access to the kitchen.Yes, but as they come down the hall, they still have to pass thru the metal detector and provide paperwork and leave their guns at the door. :)

The access it potentially provides wrongdoers is exactly the same. Terrorists don't exactly care about rules, now do they?I don't get this argument. What exact access do you think it provides to "wrongdoers"? And what "wrongdoers" are we talking about here? Are you saying that the Dubai shipping company is made up of terrorists? Or that they're more likely to let terrorists through because they come from the same country?

Terrorists who are going to break the rules are going to break them anywhere - the Dubai terminals are no more likely or less likely than any other.

Items that are delivered to that port still have to go thru U.S. Federal security processes. It's not like the Saudi government is being given an open hole into the US. You are aware the port security is still maintained by the US federal government and the Coast Guard, right? NO matter who leases the terminal?

Karen

lawyerlee

02-23-2006, 10:30 AM

Why? I gave you reasons to back it up. Why do you think it's a "bunch of BS" other than xenophobia?

karen
Oh, come on! Just because she doesn't agree with you and your "facts", she's a xenophobe? You're the one always calling people out for using those kinds of words to refer to other CCers, so how come it's OK for you to do it?

I happen to totally agree with Ally. The reality is that there are certain governments that do not take a stand against terrorism. They allow terrorists to reside within their borders, they do not try to help anyone track known terrorists down, they even help fund terrorism. Yet, because they have oil, they are our allies. And if people can't see that this is why they are our "friends", then are kidding themselves.

KarenS

02-23-2006, 10:33 AM

Oh, come on! Just because she doesn't agree with you and your "facts", she's a xenophobe? No, that's not what I said. I'm trying to have a discussion here, Diana, please don't start picking fights with me.

Responding to "they're our allies" with "That's just BS" is not a reasonable conversation. I appreciate that she went back and edited her post to add some backup. I am reading over the article now and will respond with some thoughts in a minute.

Karen

jnettie

02-23-2006, 10:35 AM

Yes, but as they come down the hall, they still have to pass thru the metal detector and provide paperwork and leave their guns at the door. :)
Not if they have something that isn't detectable. Something that they can make out of stuff from the bathroom.

KarenS

02-23-2006, 10:38 AM

Ok, a couple of thoughts:
Two of the hijackers involved in the September 11, 2001, attacks came from the Persian Gulf countryI personally think the whole "where they come from" argument is bogus. The Uni-Bomber came from the US. The shoe bomber came from the UK. Everyone comes from somewhere. That doesn't make the country they came from inherently evil.

and most of the money for the plot was funneled through the banking center of Dubai.While that's true in fact, that's like saying the US supports terrorism because much of the money was funneled through US banks as well. And Canadian banks. And British banks. Money gets funnelled. None of our governments knew what was happening - which is a huge breakdown in our intel and security, I agree - but it doesn't make any of us terrorist countries.

Critics also note that Dubai was a key transfer point for illicit nuclear technology sales to North Korea, Iran and Libya that were led by Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan.I'm stil researching this.

Karen

KarenS

02-23-2006, 10:39 AM

Not if they have something that isn't detectable. Something that they can make out of stuff from the bathroom.Ok, but I'll echo my question to Di - are you saying that the Dubai company is made up of terrorists?

karen

allyray231

02-23-2006, 10:41 AM

I personally think the whole "where they come from" argument is bogus. The Uni-Bomber came from the US. The shoe bomber came from the UK. Everyone comes from somewhere. That doesn't make the country they came from inherently evil.

This may be true--but 9/11 was a LONG planned out attack by a large group of people--not just one person.

None of our governments knew what was happening Now how do we know this for a fact?

KarenS

02-23-2006, 10:47 AM

KarenS

02-23-2006, 10:48 AM

None of our governments knew what was happening Now how do we know this for a fact?You're right, actually. So let's ban *anyone* from owning or leasing a port in the U.S. Even the U.S. Cause our banking system might have knowingly contributed to the attacks. :)

See how ludicrious it can get?

but 9/11 was a LONG planned out attack by a large group of people--not just one person. And because that group was made up of Arabs, that makes all Arabs suspect?

I must admit I'm very surprised. I remember some discussions on WC right after 9/11 where some of the same people in this thread were very much against profiling and security restrictions on anyone who was Middle Eastern. But now you're for different standards for UAE companies because ... why? They are Arab?

karen

lawyerlee

02-23-2006, 10:51 AM

No, that's not what I said. I'm trying to have a discussion here, Diana, please don't start picking fights with me.

Responding to "they're our allies" with "That's just BS" is not a reasonable conversation. I appreciate that she went back and edited her post to add some backup. I am reading over the article now and will respond with some thoughts in a minute.

Karen
It was rude and unnecessary. Oh, and were you quoting David Brooks' New York Times column from today when you used that word? Cause he used it in his column. What a coincidence.

KarenS

02-23-2006, 10:52 AM

and were you quoting David Brooks' New York Times column from today when you used that word? Cause he used it in his column. What a coincidence.No actually I wasn't. I haven't read the column. Can you send me a link?

But speaking of the NYT, here's a good article for consideration:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/23/politics/23assess.html?hp&ex=1140757200&en=c98f41020e08d417&ei=5094&partner=homepage

While critics of the deal have raised the specter that it might open the way to the "infiltration" of American ports by terrorists from the Middle East, the Dubai company would in most cases inherit a work force that is mainly American, with hiring subject to the same regulations as under the current British management.

Among the many problems at American ports, said Stephen E. Flynn, a retired Coast Guard commander who is an expert on port security at the Council on Foreign Relations, "who owns the management contract ranks near the very bottom."
ETA: I did find the column you're talking about, but I'm not a paid subscriber, so I don't have access to it. Can you recap what it says?

karen

lawyerlee

02-23-2006, 10:53 AM

I must admit I'm very surprised. I remember some discussions on WC right after 9/11 where some of the same people in this thread were very much against profiling and security restrictions on anyone who was Middle Eastern. But now you're for different standards for UAE companies because ... why? They are Arab?

karen
No one has said that. We are merely arguing for some freaking judgment in deciding who to deal with. But go ahead and assume that people are against this because they don't like Arabs. That sounds really consistent with the other opinions of these people.

lawyerlee

02-23-2006, 10:54 AM

No actually I wasn't. I haven't read the column. Can you send me a link?

karen

No problem.

Kicking Arabs in the Teeth (http://select.nytimes.com/2006/02/23/opinion/23brooks.html)

KarenS

02-23-2006, 10:59 AM

Yeah, sorry, as I said above, I don't have a subscription to the NYT, so i can't access it.

karen

allyray231

02-23-2006, 11:01 AM

No one has said that. We are merely arguing for some freaking judgment in deciding who to deal with. But go ahead and assume that people are against this because they don't like Arabs. That sounds really consistent with the other opinions of these people.

ITA. I am not doing that at all-in fact my nanny is Muslim, and I am upset that you would even assume about me.

My issue is--after living though 9/11 and living in a city where EVERYDAY I worry about a bomb going off in the subway or another attack of some short-WHY would I put our ports at a bigger risk, by a COUNTRY-not their certain ethnic group-that has had know ties.

Keep in mind-we have had other allies in the past, like Afganistan, and we know how that went.

But the big issue of this thread was that Bush said we did not have to worry about security-right

KarenS

02-23-2006, 11:02 AM

No one has said that. We are merely arguing for some freaking judgment in deciding who to deal with. But go ahead and assume that people are against this because they don't like Arabs. That sounds really consistent with the other opinions of these people.Diana, why are you being so hostile with me. I'm trying to have a discussion with you and others here. Can we please tone down the hostility and rhetoric a bit. :) Thanks.

I do believe that there is a strong anti-Arab bias here. When soemone in the thread says "they" shouldn't own any ports ... who is "they"? Arabs? When someone says that the terrorists are from "there" ... where is "there"? UAE?

There is plenty of documentation that Dubai is not one of those big oil producing states, that they are an ally, that they are working to cooperate in finding terrorists, and yet comments are being made that "they" souldn't have control of U.S. ports. I *do* feel that there's anti-Arab sentiment there - and that's why I'm so surprised.

Karen

lawyerlee

02-23-2006, 11:06 AM

What exactly did you expect when you asked someone if she was a xenophobe? Flowers and hugs? :( Just remember this the next time you get on your moral high horse about how people treat each other around here.

KarenS

02-23-2006, 11:07 AM

Diana - I am going to ask you one more time to please please please please please stop with the personalization of this conversation. Your'e the only one who is taking this this way. Please. I'm very interested in this topic and what happens ultimately. I'd like to discuss it with smart women who are also interested in dicussing and learning. Please stop this.

And to Ally - I apologize if I came across wrong. I am not calling you a xenophobe. I do feel that the blanket rejection of anything Arab and the knee jerk "BS" responses (not just by you but by lots of people) is sort of xenophobic. It's a huge concern I have about this whole issue is that there's a knee jerk reaction to anything Arab or Middle Eastern. I think we have to look beyond that.

Karen

ETA: to fix spelling

camberne

02-23-2006, 11:08 AM

After reading for myself the transcript of yesterday's White House briefing, I felt much better about this situation. I was horrified when my sister alluded that the ports were being sold to the UAE! When I found out what the actual situation was, I felt much better. I think the airport scenerio that Karen posted was a really good one. Yes, people can still get through, but it is still much safer than it was five years ago. To be perfectly honest, there is a police-issue knife that could easily be carried on-board. It's plastic, and it's razor sharp. If someone is extremely determined, they will find a way to bypass security measures.

The only concern that I have with this, and with the ports in general, is the inability to visually inspect all the containers. The containers are all inspected with x-rays and gamma (I think), but I would feel better if there were a more visually-oriented inspection possible. But this concern is independent of the UAE deal on the table.

dionysia

02-23-2006, 11:11 AM

The only concern that I have with this, and with the ports in general, is the inability to visually inspect all the containers. The containers are all inspected with x-rays and gamma (I think), but I would feel better if there were a more visually-oriented inspection possible. But this concern is independent of the UAE deal on the table.Yes!! Where is the outrage about the consistently poor security measures already in place at the nation's ports?!

Di

flygirl

02-23-2006, 11:11 AM

First of all, the OP was talking about the Bush hypocricy in telling us we don't have to worry about security, which is a bunch of BS regardless of who is running the terminals.

Second, I think the concern, at least where the concern should stem from, is that ports are notoriously unprotected, regardless of who is running them. There are too many holes in the security. This just adds a layer of concern. Just because they're *supposed* to follow rules doesn't mean they will, and given the holes, there is theoretically a better chance of using them.

As for the "they" question, I think it's a jump to consider it xenophobia against all Arabs. Regardless of the specifics, there is a connection between Dubai and terrorists. That said, UAE is certainly of less concern than other Arab nations.

jnettie

02-23-2006, 11:13 AM

(OT- do you have to pay for NYT.com now? Once upon a time it was free but you had to register. Since I subscribe, I get it included, so I don't know).

Moving along...

Karen, I totally see your point. Honestly, I struggle with this. On the one hand, I don't agree with the mass hysteria that is induced. I do have a friend who was arrested simply for being Middle Eastern and having a white GF. I hate that a private citizen can make a call out of racisim and get someone arrested. It's just wrong.

The problem here is that we have a specific problem with a specific ethnic group AND a specific religion. To a certain extent, yes, racial profiling is in order. It does no use to be random. But behavior has to be included in this. You can't pick on every Middle Eastern person, nor can you pick on every Muslim.

And yes, Oklahoma City was bombed by white guys. Ted Kazinsky was a white guy. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about a specific issue with a Mulim Theocracy (correct me if I'm wrong, but UAE is a theocracy AFAIK), and, well, we haven't had much luck in that department.

Additionally, I fear we're gearing up for a larger World War that will be a Muslim World vs. Everyone Else sort of thing. Our involvement in Iraq is going from bad to worse. The Danish Cartoon scandal is making everyone mad. It's just bad bad timing for a UAE company to buy a British company that happens to rent docks in the USA. It makes me uncomfortable.

I'm still working out what I think about this whole thing. It changes from day to day. But the simple fact that Bush says I shouldn't worry makes me worry even more.

KarenS

02-23-2006, 11:14 AM

Regardless of the specifics, there is a connection between Dubai and terrorists. Sure, but there's a connection between a lot of countries and terrorists. :)

That said, UAE is certainly of less concern than other Arab nations.Absolutely. And as someone in another thread pointed out, is shutting out one of the most progressive and westernized of the SA countries really a good thing. If we're tryign to encourage the Middle East to become modern and integrated, I think we need to be open to allowing them to participate in our economy.

Karen

LittleFredPunkinHead

02-23-2006, 11:32 AM

flygirl

02-23-2006, 11:35 AM

Sure, but there's a connection between a lot of countries and terrorists.But we're only dealing with Dubai here. :)

Ideally, I agree that letting Dubai participate could help relations with Arab countries. But we're talking about our ports, which are the most unprotected entrances into the US. I'd rather see Dubai participation in an area that didn't directly affect national security.

allyray231

02-23-2006, 12:03 PM

The only concern that I have with this, and with the ports in general, is the inability to visually inspect all the containers. The containers are all inspected with x-rays and gamma (I think), but I would feel better if there were a more visually-oriented inspection possible. But this concern is independent of the UAE deal on the table.

Totally--and along with flygirl--it is just adding another layer to the issue.

And Karen
I think we have to look beyond that.

I agree

Secret_Squirrel

02-23-2006, 12:14 PM

The reality is that there are certain governments that do not take a stand against terrorism. They allow terrorists to reside within their borders, they do not try to help anyone track known terrorists down, they even help fund terrorism. Yet, because they have oil, they are our allies. And if people can't see that this is why they are our "friends", then are kidding themselves.

You are right, but UAE is not one of those governments.

UAE has allowed us to base our middle eastern surveillance (read: spy) planes and equipment in their country. We use their ports to transport goods and personnel throughout the middle east.

Among other things:

- In 2004, they arrested a suspected al-Qaeda agent and handed him over to Pakistani officials

- In 2002, they arrested the mastermind of the USS Cole and Kenyan embassy bombings and handed him over to the US

(from: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002823048_portsemirates23.html)

About oil: While UAE is currently the world's 5th largest oil exporter, it is well known that their oil supplies will run out in a few decades. That is why they are diversifying into other industries, like shipping and banking.

In fact, according to the Parade Magazine that came with my Sunday paper a few weeks ago, UAE is also trying to turn themselves into a playground for the rich and famous. They're currently building the world's largest man-made islands offshore - the "Palm Islands" - with the hopes of luring wealthy westerners with Paparazzi-free retreats. Heck, Donald Trump is building a resort there.

Dubai is so hungry for Western celebrities, they welcomed Michael Jackson with open-arms after his trial (they've since wisend up and kicked him out).

The UAE is reaching out to the west and trying to play by our rules. They are not Iran. And it would be xenophobic of us to treat them like they were.

http://guide.theemiratesnetwork.com/living/dubai/the_palm_islands.php
http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2006/edition_01_29_2006/Intelligence_Report (last article on the page)

KarenS

02-23-2006, 12:17 PM

(OT- do you have to pay for NYT.com now? Once upon a time it was free but you had to register. Since I subscribe, I get it included, so I don't know).Not all of it. I read most of it online every morning. But certain parts like regular columns and the Op-Eds are part of the paid subscription area.

Karen

KarenS

02-23-2006, 12:21 PM

Where is the outrage about the consistently poor security measures already in place at the nation's ports?!Oh absolutely. But that's a different thread and I don't think that Dubai should be blamed for it or held hostage to it (so to speak). The lack of security is serious ... but it's not Dubai's lack.

Karen

PrincessTommi

02-23-2006, 12:25 PM

My main concern with this situation is that the administration went around a mandated procedure again, made secret deals, denied yet again that there was any fault on their part, and then started mudslinging at the people who questioned their activities.

I am not at all comfortable with people saying Arab countries should be held to different standards. I think that's flat out wrong. However, I think that doesn't dismiss the very real problem we have with our own administration.
I agree.

I'm also quite irritated that this administration, which IMO used a lot of fear mongering in their reelection campaign (We're at war! We are the only ones who can protect you from *them*! The world is different! 9-11! 9-11! 9-11!). Whether or not the fear about security involving this port deal is irrational or not, there is fear. And I think this administration has created A LOT of unneccessary fear, especially about anything related to the Middle East.

And now they're saying "Oh, stop worrying about security. Trust us." Yeah, okay.

KarenS

02-23-2006, 12:28 PM

And I think this administration has created A LOT of unneccessary fear, especially about anything related to the Middle East. I totally agree with that.

Karen

lawyerlee

02-23-2006, 12:34 PM

Bush insists Dubai firm is safe to run US ports (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1715951,00.html)
The Guardian
Larry Johnson, a former counterterrorism official at the CIA and the state department, and now a private security consultant, said the UAE had a poor record of security: "Their ports are some of the biggest smuggling centres in the world."

allyray231

02-23-2006, 01:00 PM

There are also accusations of cronyism. David Sanborn, a former Dubai Ports executive, was appointed as head of maritime administration in the transportation department, but the White House has denied he had any role in the deal.

great! (rolleyes)

allyray231

02-23-2006, 01:04 PM

9/11 report detailed possible links between UAE, bin Laden

CNN:http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/23/ports.binladen.ap/index.html

The report states U.S. intelligence believed that bin Laden was visiting an area in the Afghan desert in February 1999 near a hunting camp used by UAE officials, and that the U.S. military planned a missile strike.

Intelligence from local tribal sources indicated "bin Laden regularly went from his adjacent camp to the larger camp where he visited the Emiratis," the report said.

"National technical intelligence confirmed the location and description of the larger camp and showed the nearby presence of an official aircraft of the United Arab Emirates. But the location of bin Laden's quarters could not be pinned down so precisely," the report said.

The missile attack was never launched, and bin Laden moved on, the report said.

MORE

CIA officials hope to continue staking out the Afghan camp in hopes bin Laden would return and a possible strike could be launched.

But "imagery confirmed that less than a week after Clarke's phone call, the camp was hurriedly dismantled, and the site was deserted," the report said.

CIA officials were "irate" and thought the dismantling of the camp erased a possible site for targeting bin Laden, the report said.

KarenS

02-23-2006, 01:08 PM

LittleFredPunkinHead

02-23-2006, 01:27 PM

See .. I'm just not buying all of this. So binLaden was in the UAE. The terrorists took flight training here in the US too. Does that make the US guilty of "harboring terrorists".

If all we can come up with is "they were near government camps" then I think that's really pushing it.

Karen
The problem is transparency. If there's nothing to hide, don't hide it. Acting as though there is something to hide makes it very hard to trust them. These things might very well be nothing, but when the administration feels the need to circumvent rules to push the deal through, it doesn't make sense to give them the benefit of the doubt on it, does it?

msnicolea

02-23-2006, 01:29 PM

For me the issue is about this administration's repeated refusal and failure to follow protocol or even the LAW.

Delta

02-23-2006, 01:39 PM

In order to put it in context, here is the entire statement from which the OP pulled that quote.

THE PRESIDENT: The more people learn about the transaction that has been scrutinized and approved by my government, the more they'll be comforted that our ports will be secure. Port security in the United States will be run by Customs -- U.S. Customs -- and the United States Coast Guard. The management of some ports, which, heretofore, has been managed by a foreign company will be managed by another company from a foreign land. And so people don't need to worry about security. This deal wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America.

What I find interesting is that it's okay for a British company to manage some ports, but not okay for a company from a country that is also a valuable ally in the war on terror. The UAE has been a valuable partner in fighting the war on terror. A lot of goods are shipped from ports to the United States managed by this company.

And again, I repeat to the American people, this wouldn't be going forward if we weren't certain that our ports would be secure. But I also want to remind folks that it's really important we not send mixed messages to friends and allies around the world as we combine -- put together a coalition to fight this war on terror.

And so we'll continue to talk to people in Congress and explain clearly why the decision was made. Many of those doing the explanations are around this table, and I want to thank them for bringing a sense of calm to this issue, as people understand the logic of the decision.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060223-1.html

Secret_Squirrel

02-23-2006, 01:40 PM

The problem is transparency. If there's nothing to hide, don't hide it. Acting as though there is something to hide makes it very hard to trust them. These things might very well be nothing, but when the administration feels the need to circumvent rules to push the deal through, it doesn't make sense to give them the benefit of the doubt on it, does it?

ITA with this. If this had been done in the first place, there would be much less fearmongering going on.

dionysia

02-23-2006, 01:42 PM

Oh absolutely. But that's a different thread and I don't think that Dubai should be blamed for it or held hostage to it (so to speak). The lack of security is serious ... but it's not Dubai's lack. You'll note I have not posted my opinion on the current specific issue with the UAE-owned company. ;)

Di

Delta

02-23-2006, 01:42 PM

Just to be clear, which rules did it circumvent, and who exactly circumvented them?

camberne

02-23-2006, 01:52 PM

For me the issue is about this administration's repeated refusal and failure to follow protocol or even the LAW.See, I don't see where the administration has not followed protocol on this issue. From what I've seen and read on the briefings, protocol was followed on this.

From yesterday's WH Briefing with Scott McClellan (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060222-5.html):

"Let me mention a couple of things. First of all, there is a congressionally mandated review process that is put in place for transactions like this. It is a national security review process. It's called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States -- the CFIUS process -- that oversees such transactions. And you have some 12 departments and agencies that are involved and thoroughly reviewing such transactions and closely scrutinizing such transactions to make sure that it meets all national security concerns, to make sure that there is no national security threat.

So this was a transaction that was closely scrutinized by the experts -- by the counterterrorism experts, by the intelligence community, and those who are responsible for protecting the American people. No one in those departments objected to this transaction going forward.

<snip> ...because when you look at the facts, we believe it should be clear to people that all the national security issues were addressed during this review process that was mandated by Congress. That is our top concern, the safety and security of the American people. And that's why it goes through a process like this.

<snip>

I think in any given year, there's some 50 to 300 transactions that go through this national security review process. And this process is designed with one thing in mind: to make sure that there are no national security concerns. Last year, there were some 65 transactions that went through this process. This was a matter that was reported in the press going back to, I think, late October. The financial press was covering this possible transaction. And despite the fact that it's been covered in the press and that there are some 65 transactions that go through this process every year, we feel like Congress probably should have been briefed on this matter sooner, particularly in light of some of the false impressions that have been left in the minds of members of Congress."

I don't see where they didn't follow the proper procedures on this.

KarenS

02-23-2006, 01:58 PM

See, I don't see where the administration has not followed protocol on this issue. From what I've seen and read on the briefings, protocol was followed on this. Same here. From everything I've read, the standard procedure was followed. The big furor seems to be that the President wasn't informed sooner - which he wouldn't be in any other similar business transaction.

Now an argument could possibly be made that he needed to be informed because of the ownership issues, and I could be persuaded to that point of view maybe.

But I don't see any other issue. If I'm missing something, please let me know.

Karen

msnicolea

02-23-2006, 02:01 PM

Here's one small example:

Under secret conditions of the agreement with the administration, the Dubai company promised to cooperate with U.S. investigations as a condition of the $6.8 billion deal, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

The U.S. government chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.

In approving the purchase, the administration chose not to require Dubai Ports to keep copies of its business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to orders by American courts. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate requests by the government.

Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.

Why all the secrecy? I had a better, more thorough article re: this yesterday--I have to try to find it again!

lawyerlee

02-23-2006, 02:12 PM

Who's in charge at U.S. ports? A lot of people (http://www.abcactionnews.com/stories/2006/02/060223ports.shtml)

an Associated Press report 02/23/06

WASHINGTON - Who's in charge of security at U.S. seaports?

There's no simple answer to that question -- a critical part of the debate over the takeover of major port operations by a United Arab Emirates company

All seaports are different and the biggest ones are complex. Responsibility for security is spread among government agencies: the Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, terminal operators and state and local port authorities.

The Homeland Security Department said over a year ago that confusion about responsibility had delayed a cargo security plan.

"During the two years since DHS was established, this has frequently led to questions of 'who's in charge?"' said a draft of the plan, released in December 2004.

Even now, said Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, the Bush administration doesn't take port security seriously.

"It has consistently submitted inadequate funding requests and has routinely missed critical security deadlines that were required by law," he said.

LittleFredPunkinHead

02-23-2006, 02:16 PM

I believe this is what they didn't abide by:
EXON-FLORIO PROVISION (http://www.treasury.gov/offices/international-affairs/exon-florio/)
Amendments. Section 837(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, called the "Byrd Amendment," amended Section 721 of the Defense Production Act (the "Exon-Florio provision"). It requires an investigation in cases where:

o the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government; and

o 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."
Of course, maybe they decided that it couldn't affect the national security of the U.S. Considering that Bush, Rumsfeld, and Snow (who is supposed to chair CFIUS) were supposedly only made aware of the whole thing within the past couple days, after the okay was already given, I wonder who "they" were that made that decision?

msnicolea

02-23-2006, 02:18 PM

Thank you, LF! I have been trying to find the information for 30 friggin minutes--I couldn't remember the name of the act/provision!

lawyerlee

02-23-2006, 02:22 PM

I found this news story:

Arab Co., White House Had Secret Agreement (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/23/ap/politics/mainD8FUHG4G0.shtml)
CBS News

WASHINGTON, Feb. 23, 2006

(AP) The Bush administration secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. It chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.

As part of the $6.8 billion purchase, state-owned Dubai Ports World agreed to reveal records on demand about "foreign operational direction" of its business at U.S. ports, the documents said. Those records broadly include details about the design, maintenance or operation of ports and equipment.

The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.
Under the deal, the government asked Dubai Ports to operate American seaports with existing U.S. managers "to the extent possible." It promised to take "all reasonable steps" to assist the Homeland Security Department, and it pledged to continue participating in security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials.

KarenS

02-23-2006, 02:23 PM

Interesting. Thanks for the info guys. I"m off to do more reading! :)

K.

lawyerlee

02-23-2006, 02:26 PM

Port flap serious test for Bush (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0224/p01s03-uspo.html)
Both parties in Congress call for more oversight - and this time, public seems to agree.
Christian Science Monitor

By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON – Cooler heads are beginning to prevail. A week that began with veto threats from President Bush and sharp language aimed right back from Republicans has turned to sober briefings and a consideration of the facts.

But as the flap unfolds over a deal to transfer management of six major US ports to a Middle Eastern company, Mr. Bush faces a serious test of his political skill after blundering in dealings with members of his own party, analysts say. The man who once campaigned as a uniter appears to have done just that - uniting both parties against him.

And once again, in the wake of the furor over warrantless wiretapping, the White House and Congress are at loggerheads over national security, specifically over how much the executive branch needs to consult with legislators and submit to oversight. The difference is that, this time, the American public has latched onto the issue, and opposes the president's position.

LittleFredPunkinHead

02-23-2006, 02:39 PM

Thank you, LF! I have been trying to find the information for 30 friggin minutes--I couldn't remember the name of the act/provision!
My pleasure! ;)

camberne

02-23-2006, 03:05 PM

In the same respect that I feel that the UAE has just as much right to apply to manage a terminal at a port just like any other country, I believe that they are subject to the same rules and regulations that are imposed on the other countries should be imposed on the UAE.

I've been saying this alot today - it's just wrong.

Delta

02-23-2006, 03:44 PM

Yeah, I do wonder who exactly made these final decisions...like on what level were they made? The White House? The intra-agency committee? And if the latter, were they political or career employees? If it were political, they really should have been aware of the political implications. Or maybe they were and they just didn't think to give the WH a heads up.

allyray231

02-24-2006, 08:19 AM

I read a great oped piece in the Post today. One of the bigs things they said was that even though the deal was not as bad as it sounds-they way that the adminstartion handeled it was really bad and had it been an election year that this deal would have never even been considered.

I will see if I can find it and post it.

allyray231

02-24-2006, 08:24 AM

Here is it-you have to be a member of the site so I will post it.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/60262.htm

THE more we learn about the Dubai ports deal, the less worrisome it seems. The more we see the White House in action these days, however, the more worrisome it seems — for conservatives and Republicans, at least. Democrats and liberals have every reason to be beside themselves with glee.
"Can't anybody here play this game?" baseball manager Casey Stengel famously cried out in the midst of the legendarily awful first-season team fielded by the New York Mets. In conversation after conversation this week, that same cri de coeur has erupted on the right.

What has happened to the Bush White House? Throughout President Bush's first term, it functioned like a well-oiled machine. It would be hard for friend or foe to point out more than a handful of occasions when the White House lost control of an issue. Even in its darkest days — say, when former White House counterterror chief Richard Clarke came out with guns blazing against Bush — the administration kept a clear head and effectively fought back from the brink.

Not now. Only a few days after the furor over Dick Cheney's shooting accident subsided, the story of the transfer of ownership at U.S. ports to a company owned by Dubai exploded.

It may all be a tempest in a teapot, as David Brooks and Larry Kudlow have argued persuasively. But imagine this: The year is 2003. Or 2004. Bush is running for re-election. Would he or his administration have allowed this deal to go through? The answer: No way. No way on earth. With the focus on re-election, the president and his team would have seen the political danger and moved to prevent or forestall it.

That's what's happening now in 2006. Only it isn't the president running for re-election. It's every member of the House of Representatives, and 33 senators. And the Republicans are terrified of this ports deal. For the first time in the course of the Bush presidency, they're running as far away from him as fast as they can.

No sensible Republican politician facing the voters in eight months is going to give a Democratic rival an easy way to get to his right on a national-security issue. The objections to the ports deal may be bogus as a matter of policy, but they're potent as a matter of politics.

That's why it was a very, very bad move for the president to come out and threaten a veto of any congressional action on the matter. By being so aggressive — and by accusing those with trepidations about the deal of being unfair to Muslims — Bush demonstrated a surprising unwillingness to examine the political consequences of his actions.

No Republican politician is going to commit career suicide simply because the president asks him to. In 2002, his politically brilliant handling of the homeland-security issue won the Senate back for his party. In 2006, he came out of the White House and essentially demanded that Republicans on Capitol Hill fall in line on a matter that is far too complicated for him or them to explain — and risk his party's majorities in the House and Senate.

Not gonna happen. Only hours after Bush made his veto threat, the Republican leader of the Senate, Bill Frist, went on Hugh Hewitt's nationally syndicated radio show and said the votes would be there to override Bush's veto.

There are suggestions that the White House has finally gotten the message. Yesterday afternoon, Bush's chief political adviser Karl Rove went on Tony Snow's radio show and said the administration might be amenable to a delay of 45 days or so in approving the deal to give Congress a "comfort level" on it. Want to bet that "delay" will stretch from now through the election?

Stengel's 1962 Mets had never played together before because the team hadn't existed before. What's the Bush White House's excuse for handling things so poorly in the second term?

chrisinluv

02-24-2006, 08:36 AM

Sounds like Bush has such close ties to the DPW people that he is willing to risk his popularity with his base to please them. Perhaps he believes that he can do no wrong in the eyes of all Republicans, and that they will blindly take his word for it that this is a perfectly safe deal. I just can't understand why he would gamble with his fellow Republicans' political careers, when most have shown such loyalty to him over the past several years.

Secret_Squirrel

02-24-2006, 02:06 PM

Very interesting op-ed piece form William Arkin in the Washington Times, examining the different takes on the issue.

http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/02/clash_of_contai.html

... what "reasonable" observers in the Middle East see is the blocking of an Arab country from business in the United States, a bigoted move that they find objectionable because it fundamentally reflects an American bias that all Muslims are potential terrorists.

The cute and cynical Washington interpretation of the entire port-gate affair will be that a set of U.S. legislators are preening for the voters in the run up to November.

The Bush administration meanwhile rushes to the defense of the UAE and the business deal, but what it is really doing is subsisting off of the fear of another 9/11.

War is such a comfort to the Bush camp because war inherently gives the federal government and the White House so much power. On the surface, rebellion over the UAE deal and the huffing and puffing about protecting AMERICA would seem to just play into the hands of Democrats and opponents of the administration, but the reality is that this entire episode just punctuates national security fears that favor the White House.

And mark my words: If Congress does anything from all of this, it will be to pass a Ports Security and Protection of Vital American Bodily Fluids Act demanding more security, more money spent on intelligence, more inspections and review, more federal agents. (emphasis added)

lawyerlee

02-26-2006, 04:19 AM

I thought this article was pretty interesting, too.

Bush's Response To the Ports Deal Faulted as Tardy (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/25/AR2006022501579_pf.html)
By the Time President's Political Team Took Notice, Controversy Was an Uproar
Washington Post

By Jim VandeHei and Paul Blustein
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, February 26, 2006; A05

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, an outspoken liberal Democrat from New York, two weeks ago began publicly denouncing a deal to let a Middle Eastern firm take over terminal operations at six U.S. seaports. From the other end of the political spectrum, even more outspoken conservative radio host Michael Savage was doing the same -- and recruiting Republican lawmakers to his cause.

To anyone listening, it was clear that President Bush had a problem on his hands. But Bush was not listening. And his political team had its attention elsewhere. By the time they noticed, Bush's problem had grown a lot bigger.

A behind-the-scenes reconstruction of the ports deal's rapid evolution from obscurity to uproar shows how Bush was blindsided by the same emotion-laden politics of terrorism that he used to win elections in 2002 and 2004. It also raises anew questions of why the White House message machine, so sharply effective in the first term, seemingly has gone dull in the second.

Sarah

02-26-2006, 01:28 PM

ITA. I am not doing that at all-in fact my nanny is Muslim, and I am upset that you would even assume about me.

But Muslim does not equal Arab, or vice versa. :confused:

allyray231

02-26-2006, 02:56 PM

But Muslim does not equal Arab, or vice versa. :confused:

I understand that-but I assume she was refuring the people who are Islamic-since we were talking about terriosts

KarenS

02-26-2006, 07:04 PM

in fact my nanny is Muslim, and I am upset that you would even assume about me. And how in God's green earth am I supposed to know that you have a Muslim nanny? And even if I did know that, it doesn't mean that your Muslim nanny is Middle Estern.

And even so, what does that prove? I have people in my own family (unfortunately) who employ and are even friends with non-Caucasian people on a one-on-one basis but still make racist comments about them as a group of people. Employing someone as a household employee doesn't mean anything.

Karen

allyray231

02-26-2006, 07:17 PM

Karen-I stated that fact LAST WEEK--when we were talking about weither of not I was calling "them" a certain class of people. Sarah came in and quoted it back from pg 1. I was just expalining myself and why I wrote it.

Read the thread before you attack ok

ETA-and you are right-she is not from the middle east--but since you decided to call me a raciest-I thought I would metion it

KarenS

02-26-2006, 07:20 PM

Um. I didn't call you a racist. And I just saw the quote just now. So I was responding to it. My response is that: (a) there is no way I could know that anyone on this board has a Muslim employee unless they have previously told me and (b) having a Muslim employee does not guarantee anyone is not a racist.

But I also stated LAST WEEK that I didn't think you were a racist.

Karen

allyray231

02-26-2006, 08:12 PM

But I also stated LAST WEEK that I didn't think you were a racist.

I know you did-and like I said--I came in here to metion why I said it last week. But you felt the need to attack me today

KarenS

02-26-2006, 08:54 PM

Nevermind. Not worth it. Learn what an attack is. That wasn't one.

lawyerlee

02-27-2006, 04:19 AM

Yeah, no shit it's not worth it. It's not worth rehashing something that was last discussed days ago. But by all means, see if you can derail an otherwise interesting thread with a bunch of nonsense. :(

allyray231

02-27-2006, 07:25 AM

Karen you know it is really to bad becuase we were all having a good discussion until someone came in here and quoted something out of the converstation totally random. And you jumped all over it as usual

Forget it is right.

lawyerlee

03-04-2006, 05:17 AM

More lies? What a shocker. :rolleyes: How sickening. :mad: :(

Rep. King: Port deal not investigated beforehand (http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/03/rep_king_port_d.html)
USA Today - On Deadline
Rep. Peter King, a New York Republican, told radio ranger Don Imus this morning that contrary to what President Bush and administration officials have been telling the public, the Dubai port deal was not scrutinized first, according to officials involved. Here's the sound bite:

" ... When I met with people who are on this committee, I was told upfront - this is before they got their act together - that they did no investigating. There was no investigation done. ..."

Don Imus talks to Congressman Peter King from the Third Congressional District of New York.

Imus: "This Dubai port proposal, tell me where you are on this."

King: "Actually, very seriously on this, I have real questions about it, and I’ll tell you why. The company is owned by the government. The government just four and a half years ago was supporting the Taliban, was supporting al Qaeda. The royal family had close relationships with Bin Laden, and my concern is are those same people still in the government today? Do they have any influence over the company? Where did they go? I mean, it’s not like choosing between the Mets and the Yankees when they, you know, supported al Qaeda against us, when they were with bin Laden. That’s why the C.I.A. couldn’t take out bin Laden because the UAE royal family was with him in Afghanistan. So, to me, it’s a very real issue. Do we want to have our ports managed by a company which could have a very significant al Qaeda presence, a pro-Taliban presence. Do we want them within our defense perimeter? And what bothered me about the whole thing, and I was asking questions at the beginning. I said I had concerns about it. And when I met with people who are on this committee, I was told upfront - this is before they got their act together - that they did no investigating. There was no investigation done. And then I’m watching "Meet the Press" a week ago Sunday, and Secretary Chertoff was on, and he was saying, 'Well, if the American people knew what a rigorous investigation was conducted, they wouldn’t have any concerns.' That’s when I realized they’re not telling us the true story here, and that’s why I’ve come out against the deal, and at least until there’s a form of investigation. Even then, I think it’s going to be very hard to let these people within our defense perimeter. I mean, as Commissioner Kelly said the other day, he’s probably the best police commissioner in the world, these people don’t just manage the ports in some general sense, they actually decide who goes into the ports, they control internal security they know what the vulnerability assessments are. To me, it’s a real issue, and I’ve supported George Bush on every issue, and really I think he’s an outstanding President, what he’s done in foreign policy and terrorism. I know you would disagree with some of that, but I’ve supported him. But on this, I just think he’s wrong, and for him to say that people like myself, who lost almost 150 friends and neighbors and constituents on September 11, that we’re doing this out of some bias or ethnic animosity, it’s really an insult. Listen, I don’t care about being insulted, but it misses the whole point of what we’re doing. We’re raising real, legitimate national security concerns."

And this from someone who supports GWB and thinks he is an "outstanding President".

jnettie

03-04-2006, 01:41 PM

lawyerlee

03-08-2006, 10:33 AM

See, this is exactly what I was worried about! We're told don't worry, these people are our friends, yet our "friends" are giving money to the taliban and Bin Laden! And it's not just a company that happens to be from the UAE, but a company controled by the gov. of UAE, a gov. that supports a group that hates us!

Mostly, I just don't trust Bush as far as I could throw him. If he says "don't worry" I know I have to worry.
Of course, we supported the Taliban and Iraq, too, so we're not exactly squeeky clean. ;) :)

I don't understand why they won't just hold hearings on this in the Senate Intelligence Committee. I'm *so* pissed off at Pat Roberts. :mad: :( If this activity is sketchy enough to warrant review every 45 days, it's worth holding public hearings on. And it's most certainly possible to do that without compromising national security. :mad:

G.O.P. Senators Say Accord Is Set on Wiretapping (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/08/politics/08nsa.html?_r=1&th=&oref=slogin&emc=th&pagewanted=print)
New York Times

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
and SCOTT SHANE

WASHINGTON, March 7 — Moving to tamp down Democratic calls for an investigation of the administration's domestic eavesdropping program, Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee said Tuesday that they had reached agreement with the White House on proposed bills to impose new oversight but allow wiretapping without warrants for up to 45 days.

The agreement, hashed out in weeks of negotiations between Vice President Dick Cheney and Republicans critical of the program, dashes Democratic hopes of starting a full committee investigation because the proposal won the support of Senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine. The two, both Republicans, had threatened to support a fuller inquiry if the White House did not disclose more about the program to Congress.

"We are reasserting Congressional responsibility and oversight," Ms. Snowe said.

The proposed legislation would create a seven-member "terrorist surveillance subcommittee" and require the administration to give it full access to the details of the program's operations.

Ms. Snowe said the panel would start work on Wednesday, and called it "the beginning, not the end of the process."

"We have to get the facts in order to weigh in," she said. "We will do more if we learn there is more to do."

Domestic spying restrictions advance (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascitystar/news/politics/14042721.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp)
But senators block call for inquiry
Kansas City Star

By JAMES KUHNHENN
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked an investigation into President Bush’s secret domestic spying program, but agreed to expand congressional oversight of the surveillance system in the future.

At the same time, four Senate Republicans began circulating legislation that would restrict the administration’s ability to eavesdrop on U.S. residents without court approval.

The legislation would require the administration to obtain warrants to eavesdrop on U.S. residents unless the attorney general certified to House and Senate intelligence subcommittees that seeking court approval would hurt intelligence gathering.

The legislation was sponsored by Sens. Mike DeWine of Ohio, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Olympia Snowe of Maine.

The legislation emerged as the Senate Intelligence Committee voted behind closed doors to block a Democratic demand for a full investigation into the program. The surveillance, which is carried out by the National Security Agency, tracks communications between al-Qaida suspects overseas and U.S. residents, according to the administration.

jnettie

03-08-2006, 10:42 AM

I know, I know, we supported all sorts of people that soon became our enemies. Mostly, we cast them aside when we no longer needed them. Lovely. And we wonder why they hate us.

There was an interesting interview of Gary Hart on the Tavis Smiley Show (NPR). He talked about the current administration's resistance to bipartisan help and the current mess of things:

Gary Hart Interview (http://www.tavistalks.com/TTcom/TSradio/GaryHart030306.html)

lawyerlee

03-08-2006, 04:45 PM

An interesting development:

House Committee Votes to Block Ports Deal (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/08/AR2006030800257_pf.html)
Washington Post

By LIZ SIDOTI
The Associated Press
Wednesday, March 8, 2006; 6:36 PM

WASHINGTON -- In an election-year repudiation of President Bush, a House panel dominated by Republicans voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to block a Dubai-owned firm from taking control of some U.S port operations.

By 62-2, the Appropriations Committee voted to bar DP World, run by the government of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, from holding leases or contracts at U.S. ports.

Bush has promised to veto any such measure passed by Congress, but there is widespread public opposition to the deal and the GOP fears losing its advantage on the issue of national security in this fall's elections.

lawyerlee

03-09-2006, 02:51 PM

Behind the deal on NSA wiretaps (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0309/p01s01-uspo.html)
Congress sidesteps its battle with Bush over wiretapping, but is adamant about ports.
Christian Science Monitor

By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON – After weeks of testy hearings and powerful floor statements, the Republican-controlled Congress appears to be sidestepping a clash with the White House over its domestic surveillance program.

At the same time, it's ratcheting up objections to a White House-backed proposal that would allow a company based in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, to manage six American ports.

That divergence, analysts say, reflects a political dynamic of the war on terror: Neither Congress nor the White House wants to be seen as impeding national security.

lawyerlee

03-09-2006, 05:45 PM

US rights groups ask courts to end domestic spying (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060309/us_nm/security_eavesdropping_courts_dc&printer=1;_ylt=AglMIUMn2I7bt6dGL4Ddy0oXIr0F;_ylu=X 3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-)
Reuters

By Kevin Krolicki

Civil liberties groups on Thursday asked federal courts to halt the Bush administration's controversial program of domestic eavesdropping, saying it violated the privacy and free speech rights of U.S. citizens.

The requests for court-ordered injunctions filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in Detroit and by the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York were an extension of legal challenges the two groups had filed in January.

Both groups said their most recent actions were prompted by indications that Republican senators were working with the White House to draft a law that would allow eavesdropping on some communications to and from the United States without a warrant.

Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee have proposed creating a new panel to oversee the spy program while allowing wiretaps involving suspected terrorists to proceed without court clearance for up to 45 days.

lawyerlee

03-12-2006, 07:04 PM

Thank you, Senator Feingold! :)

Feingold Wants Bush Censured Over Spying (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/bush_censure&printer=1;_ylt=Ap_4D1ki0mJOeR9Du9_yvPiMwfIE;_ylu=X 3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-)
AP

By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer

A liberal Democrat and potential White House contender is proposing censuring President Bush for authorizing domestic eavesdropping, saying the White House misled Americans about its legality.

"The president has broken the law and, in some way, he must be held accountable," Sen. Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record), D-Wis., told The Associated Press in an interview.

A censure resolution, which simply would scold the president, has been used just once in U.S. history — against Andrew Jackson in 1834.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., called the proposal "a crazy political move" that would weaken the U.S. during wartime.

The five-page resolution to be introduced on Monday contends that Bush violated the law when, on his own, he set up the eavesdropping program within the National Security Agency in the months following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.