Well I'm bouncing off walls in internet searches, but it seems that P&O (private company) bought the former port management company (ITO - not finding much on this company) in June 1999. P&O is being bought by this Dubai based company - so Bush & co aren't taking direct payment for purchase of this management control - they're just not objecting to it, based (allegedly) on the recommendation of a committee review of possible security issues.<br><br>Since P&O wants out of this business, I'm guessing their only option is to block the purchase by Dubai co, in which case someone else will buy out P&O, OR allow purchase of the other segments of P&O to go ahead, with either a government or private sector buy out of the US port management business.<br><br>Has anyone found what "management" actually entails or is this media scaremongering. Personally I assume security is still up to Homeland Security - and Homeland Security isn't really tasked with the sea equivalent of air traffic control!! (which is what I assume "management" primarily entails).<br><br><br>- This is gonna get pretty interesting. <br>- Define "interesting". <br>- Oh, God, oh, God, we're all gonna die..<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Llewelyn on 02/17/06 11:39 AM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>

FoxNews provides this PDF Congressional letter to the Dept. of Treasury <br><br><br>If you dare venture to today's Daily Kos, there are many links showing the bipartisan disapproval of this contract and links to other relevant news to this story. <br><br><br>Some facts about the UAE:<br><br>– The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.<br><br>– The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Libya.<br><br>– According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.<br><br>– After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.<br><br><br><br><br>

Ok, the information I'm bouncing on are details of ITO pre June 1999, how they aquired port management, etc. I think it would be interesting to read.<br><br>While my gut says this might be a bad idea, I have seen nothing real concrete to say why it is. Much of the arguments raised could be levelled at the US by the UK with support of the IRA - US banking system used to transfer money, etc. But there's nothing I've seen linking UAO to state sponsoring of Al Qaida.<br><br>But much of the media coverage seems to be fanning the flames of Arabs=Al Qaida=Axis of Evil=Terrorists are going to be running the US ports on the East Coast.<br><br><br>But nobody seems to be saying what "management of the ports" actually entails. Keeping the lights on? Paying janitors? Moving crates? Organising road/sea traffic? Security? How much oversight does Homeland Security have?<br><br><br>- This is gonna get pretty interesting. <br>- Define "interesting". <br>- Oh, God, oh, God, we're all gonna die..

Didn't a similar deal happen recently with this committee on foreign investments pushing for the sale of US owned Unocal to a Chinese corporation? I recall that that deal fell apart once the bipartisan opposition got into the media.<br><br>Shelby & Schumer are doing what's right to get this out from secretive committees and into the public forum. If the port deal is or is not a threat, then it should be thoroughly debated in Congress.<br><br><br><br>

Whatever did happen to Unocal? Did the stay in business? Sell out to someone else? Are they still up for sale?<br><br>The deal I see here is that a UK company wants to sell up and a Dubai company wants to buy it. The US cannot stop that sale - though they do have certain power to place certain conditions on the sale. You cannot force a company to stay in business, so the options I can see are:<br>1) Force the sale to split, so that non-US interests are sold for a lower price. P&O reoffer the US interests on market again.<br>2) Some sort of contract buy back, where the US govt pays Dubai for the US port management.<br><br>Option 1 could result in Dubai no longer having interest in the P&O deal, which would result in the whole kit and kaboodle going back up for sale - this could give the US government the option to buy back the management contract from P&O. But that (and the 2nd option) then leaves the US government with something it's not currently set up to administrate and will probably sell to another company. And we know the right wing manifesto doesn't consider public ownership of business to be a good thing - heck they're trying to sell off the air traffic control!! (which I do consider to be a truely catastrophic idea). I don't know, maybe I missed something - the media seems to be playing scaremongering - but then I'm so cynical about them anyway (they seem to have given up on investigative journalism and expect people to give them the news over the phone), but it sure seems to me the only thing they're interested in is providing a scare story, rather than all the details.<br><br><br>- This is gonna get pretty interesting. <br>- Define "interesting". <br>- Oh, God, oh, God, we're all gonna die..

As I said, if the one thing accomplished today is to get this deal making out from secret committees and into a public forum. There's too much doubt in this because of what is known with the UAE and our national security. <br><br>Seems like we also went through a similar scenario recently with the torture ban. Bipartisan support, overwhelming public support but the administration opposed it. Even though the bill went through Bush did his 'signing waiver' attachment doodad to negate the whole deal. If it comes down to this same type of action because the FACTS of the issue warrant congressional debate and signed legislation, let the President kill it with the same tactic if that's what he wants. At least it will be clear whether it's in the nation's best interest or the president's. <br><br><br><br>

The "deal" has been in the open for many months now, and involves the UK co. and UAE. There's no reason to suggest that Bush co has a financial interest in the deal - well people can allege kickbacks, but I've not seen hard facts supporting that.<br><br>But nobody seems to be interested in reporting hard facts, just fearmongering. This Dubai company has been running ports in the rest of the world for a number of years now, we've not seen any major attacks in Australia have we? There's (at minimum) accusation that illegal goods have been trafficed through some of the ports they manage, but nothing to say they knew it was happening or acted to support it - it's probably a safe bet to say that smuggling of illegal goods happens at US borders (airports and seaports and land), how much is supported actively by port authorities or the US government, and how much is just not detected.<br><br>I just wonder what the committee will turn up in another 45 days, that they didn't turn up in the 30 days they alread spent reviewing the sale. Are the US intelligence services going to find anything new? I doubt the US press will - unless someone invites them round for a pot of tea! They've had at least 30 days already to do some investigative journalism and they only thing they've come up with so far is we can't sell our security to foreigners - well bozo's, foreigners have been running these ports for almost 7 years now and you didn't get worked up about it back then - or is it just that these particular foreigners are arabs?!?!<br><br><br>- This is gonna get pretty interesting. <br>- Define "interesting". <br>- Oh, God, oh, God, we're all gonna die..

So a British owned company had been doing the work, there's nothing of particular concern about that. The reasons stated in the Congressional letter to Snow are the issues of concern. Transferring the contract to a foreign company with issues that compromise our national security, again as it is stated in that letter, is not fearmongering. Would it be fearmongering to be concerned if this same company would also be handling airport security or our nuclear power plants? Do you consider the whole premise of Homeland Security fear mongering? I doubt you do.<br><br>I find it interesting that concerns about this deal are labeled fear mongering when the request is for it to go under more extensive review before it's a done deal.<br><br>Problem is that it's most likely already a done deal and nothing a bipartisan effort can change. So we can just hope for the best.<br><br><br><br><br><br>

I'm sure the mafia in Baltimore that runs the docks will have something to say 'bout that. :)<br><br>

Sorry I wasn't clear - the media reporting has basically been on the fearmongering trail. The senate/congressional letter does raise some concerns. But how much more will be discovered in another 45days that wasn't discovered in the previos 30day indepth investigation (by the same group of people)? If the company has been infiltrated by terrorists, you think they'll be spotted given more time?<br><br>It's also one of the reasons I'm questioning what does "management of the ports" mean? Does it include Security or is that overseen by Homeland Security. How did Homeland Security handle P&O management of the ports? And would that change anytime soon? I'm sure the US government is not going to issue visas wholesale to UAE citizens to take over the ports in question - more likely the current port workers will just be drawing the same paycheck with a different signature and bank account number on them.<br><br>And the media reporting has been so vague I have heard that this is effectively a done deal, so chances are that we won't get another 45days to do another indepth study.<br><br><br>- This is gonna get pretty interesting. <br>- Define "interesting". <br>- Oh, God, oh, God, we're all gonna die..