Playing The Muslim Card: Dubai Ports World, Pt. 3

Half an hour on Google provided some interesting information, which I’ve summarized below. To my knowledge, there hasn’t been a single blogger who has provided this particular set of facts:

U.S. Ports: Operation and Ownership

There is no single ownership or operation model for the 300+ sea and river ports in the United States. States and/or local governments actually own these sea and river ports, and these ports can be governed by a state, a city government, or either a bi-state or regional port agency. Ports are typically structured to be either a subsidiary of a public agency or as a private sector corporation. Most ports operate under the ‘landlord model’, in which the port provides basic infrastructure and services, while the port operator (the ‘tenant’) actually operates the port. Under the ‘operating ports’ model, the port itself operates all of the port facilities.

U.S. Ports: Security

The federal government has jurisdiction over foreign (and interstate) commerce and those areas designated as federal waterway channels. The appropriate state and city governments have law enforcement authority over the ports they own, and some ports have been allowed to maintain their own police forces.

Port Security: Federal Involvement

The federal agencies involved in port security are as follows:

1. the Coast Guard (Dept. of Homeland Security),
2. the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (Dept. of Homeland Security),
3. the Transportation Security Agency (Dept. of Homeland Security), and
4. the Maritime Administration (Dept. of Transportation).

The Coast Guard

The Coast Guard is the lead federal agency for the maritime component of homeland security, which includes port authority. A high-ranking Coast Guard officer in each port area serves as the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port is the lead federal official responsible for the security of the vessels and waterways within his zone. The Coast Guard has the responsibility of protecting all harbors and vessels from “subversive acts”.

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection

The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection has the responsibility of inspecting cargoes entering U.S. ports, as well as the examination and inspection of ship crews and cruise ship passengers arriving at U.S. ports from a foreign port.

Transportation Security Administration

This agency is responsible for the security of all types of passenger and cargo transportation.

Maritime Administration

This agency supports the U.S. commercial maritime industry. It provides a national planning guide on port security, as well as Maritime Security Reports.

....................

Within this context we have is the contention, voiced by everyone from Senator Schumer to Michelle Malkin, that the government of the United Arab Emirates, via Dubai Ports World, is going to render the national security of the United States vulnerable to terrorist attack because “foreign ownership” of the lease to operate the Port of New York and New Jersey (for example) will allow devious sheiks to import swarthy, gun toting Arabs to overrun and/or outfox...

1. The Coast Guard, and
2. The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, and
3. The Transportation Security Administration, as well as
4. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

Mind you, this short list doesn’t include any of the cooperating agencies at either the federal, state or local level that are involved in differing aspect of port security. Agencies (in the example of the Port of New York and New Jersey) such as...

1. The New Jersey State Police, and
2. The New York City Police Department, and
3. The United States Drug Enforcement Agency, or
4. The FBI Joint Terrorist Task Force.

Wow.

All I can say is I have to step back and admire the cunning of those particular sheiks within the government of the United Arab Emirates for being able to come up with a workable plan to infiltrate so many different governmental agencies and to fool or enlist so many U.S. citizens to turn our ports into little more than a destination point for the millions of untrustworthy (and swarthy) Arabs and intolerant Muslims who will, no doubt, be landing on the shores of Jersey in hundreds of P.T. boats any day now.

Comments

[elemental]

I expect this behavoir from 'The Right' but its sad that 'The Left' hasn't been able to rise above this. It's just too easy for Schumer, et al. to make political hay at Arabs' expense. There's no risk and lots of upside as far as they're concerned. Self-respect and values don't play into that equation.

Oh how far we've come.

[74]

Not to mention that all the dockworkers will be Union men - don't piss off the Stevadores if you know what's good for you!

[Guesst]

From wtol.com, regarding today's Ohio terrorist indictments:

According to the indictment [for terrorist activities] from the US Attorney's office, the suspects are Mohammad Zaki Amawi, Marwan Othman El-Hindi, and Wassim Mazloum. The indictment says all three were living in the Toledo area. Amawi is a citizen of the US and also a citizen of Jordan. El-Hindi is a naturalized American citizen who was born in Jordan. Mazloum is a legal permanent resident of the US, who came here from Lebanon.

.

How do The Left feel about good citizenship?

[wxjames]

74, You've hit on the problem I have with the ports. It should be against the law to slow or stop work on unloading incoming ships. To put it simply, the goods included on those ships could and do contribute to the functions of almost every part of our lives. No phaking union has any right or priviledge to interupt commerce across the board for their own benefit. The impact on a long strike at the docks would choke normal commerce and crash markets ad hoc. That is a violation of national security.

[sonic]

"It should be against the law to slow or stop work on unloading incoming ships."

There is a name for workers who have no right to withdraw their labour, fill in the missing letters.

sl*v*s.

[elemental]

How do The Left feel about good citizenship?

Posted by: Guesst | February 21, 2006 at 02:04 PM

yawwwwn. wake me when someone's actually convicted of a real terrorist related crime.

[Sam]

"There is a name for workers who have no right to withdraw their labour"

The US prevents some workers from striking due to the importance of their work to national security, including economic security. One example is (or at least was) air traffic controllers.

Such workers have every right to quit. They just can't impede others from replacing them.

It's arguable whether that's good government, good morality, good conservatism, or good liberalism.

But it's ridiculous to call someone a slave if he can leave and get another job.

[fundamental]

I expect this behavior from the Left, demagogy being their sine qua non, but the Right seems worried they are losing points instead of concerned about maintaining principles. Regrettable. At least Bush seems to have been reading Dennis. Strong statement on Air Force One and again at the White House lawn:

And I also want to address another issue I just talked to the press about on Air Force One, and that is this issue of a company out of the UAE purchasing the right to manage some ports in the United States from a British company. First of all, this is a private transaction. But it -- according to law, the government is required to make sure this transaction does not, in any way, jeopardize the security of the country. And so people responsible in our government have reviewed this transaction. The transaction should go forward, in my judgment. If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward. The company has been cooperative with the United States government. The company will not manage port security. The security of our ports will be -- continue to be managed by the Coast Guard and Customs. The company is from a country that has been cooperative in the war on terror, been an ally in the war on terror. The company operates ports in different countries around the world, ports from which cargo has been sent to the United States on a regular basis.

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

And so, look, I can understand why some in Congress have raised questions about whether or not our country will be less secure as a result of this transaction. But they need to know that our government has looked at this issue and looked at it carefully. Again, I repeat, if there was any question as to whether or not this country would be less safe as a result of the transaction, it wouldn't go forward. But I also want to repeat something again, and that is, this is a company that has played by the rules, that has been cooperative with the United States, a country that's an ally in the war on terror, and it would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through.

Fundamental (Elemental's long lost elder brother)

[elemental]

Wow, I never thought the day would come that I would be nodding along with the President.

I never though I would see the day the left would not be pussies enough to stand up to the President. Apparantly all they needed was the opportunity to capitalize on the vast unpopularity and ignorance of a country with the word 'Arab' in its title.

[fundamental]

I don't know Elemental, Bush has been saying stuff like this throughout his whole presidency. He was saying stuff like this even before 9.11. I remember a speech he gave at the Holocaust Musuem in March or April of 2001 that clearly outlined the problem of tyranny. Showed he got it. He also selected Churchill man of the century when he was Gov. down in Texas. Odd, in a good way, I thought. Remember I was a rabid Democrat back then. Born and raised such. But that speech and other things eased my angst a lot. (I'm sure it is somewhere on the White House website.) Anyway, what Bush says and does and what Bush reportedly says and does are usually vastly different things. Voted for Bush in 2004. Happy I did. Still haven't changed my registration to the VRWC, but I'm a step closer today.

[fundamental]

Off the topic (but for the record):

It wasn't at the Holocaust Musuem, but remarks given for a Day of Remembrance ceremony. I think they visited the musuem the day before. The passage that especially helped me forget Florida:

"We remember at the Capitol because the United States has accepted a special role; we strive to be a refuge for the persecuted. We are called by history and by conscience to defend the oppressed. Our country stands on watch for the rise of tyranny, and history's worst tyrants have always reserved a special hatred for the Jewish people. Tyrants and dictators will accept no other gods before them. They require disobedience to the First Commandment. They seek absolute control and are threatened by faith in God. They fear only the power they cannot possess, the power of truth.

So they resent the living example of the devout, especially the devotion of a unique people, chosen by God. Through centuries of struggle, Jews across the world have been witnesses not only against the crimes of men, but for faith in God, and God alone. Theirs is a story of defiance and oppression, and patience and tribulation, reaching back to the Exodus and their exile. That story continued in the founding of the state of Israel. That story continues in the defense of the state of Israel.

When we remember the Holocaust and to whom it happened, we also must remember where it happened. It didn't happen in some remote or unfamiliar place; it happened right in the middle of the Western world. Trains carrying men, women, and children in cattle cars departed from Paris and Vienna, Frankfurt and Warsaw. And the orders came not from crude and uneducated men, but from men who regard themselves as cultured and well-schooled, modern and even forward-looking. They had all the outward traits of cultured men -- except for conscience.

Their crimes show the world that evil can slip in and blend in, amid the most civilized of surroundings. In the end, only conscience can stop it, and moral discernment and decency and tolerance. These can never be assured in any time or in any society. They must always be taught."

Get past Bush's twang and the mannerisms and his Mooreification and the Stewart ribs and, in fact, there is a lot to be learned from the guy.

"And the orders came not from crude and uneducated men, but from men who regard themselves as cultured and well-schooled, modern and even forward-looking."

[paradoctor]

I think the hidden agenda here is not the stated one, but that's all right because the stated agenda is bogus and the hidden one is genuine; and this duality is perfectly in tune with the fashionable hypocrisy of the day.

The hidden agenda is economic security. Economic nationalism, you see; so this debate is part of the whole outsourcing debate. How free may free trade be? Shall we, as nationalists, insist that some parts of our nation must be owned only by citizens? Or shall we instead, as good globalists, teach that borders are now a thing of the past? Is the market open to all, or not?

(I have some guarded sympathy for both points of view. Nationalism is obviously an abomination; but so is globalism.)

The stated agenda is anti-terrorism; but that's bogus because anti-terrorism guides rhetoric but not policy. This has been proven time and again, most dramatically by the Iraq war. It was billed as anti-terror, but increased it, as the experts in the field predicted early on.

The plain fact is that the people in charge are simply not that concerned with the threat of terrorism. And why should they be? Terrorists can inflict dramatic local damage, but a well-organized society can withstand even sustained terror attacks; the British and the Israelis have proven that. An insect can bite a lion, but the insect remains an insect and the lion remains a lion. It's unpleasant but doable, and what's more the powerful can profit from it, so it is not (from their POV) a real problem.

The real problems are the same old problems; money and power. How much is there to go around, and who gets what? In that sense 9/11 changed nothing.

The Left is simply calling the Bush cult on its hypocrisy in this case. Why this particular hypocrisy rather than a multitude of others? They are taking Rove's advice; attack the enemy at his supposedly strongest point. It makes perfect sense to point to ports being owned by scary Arabs and say "he's not keeping you safe!"

And no, he isn't. Never mind the imagined bombs. What about the all-too-real cuts in paychecks? The trouble with the Arab corporations is not that they're Arabs; that merely _permits_ demonization. No, it's that they're _corporations_; that _motivates_ demonization!

[Helen]

I don't know Paradoctor, but where to start. I do agree that the Dems see this as an opportunity. But I think their getting Roved again. As far as the Left calling out the "Bush cult" on its hypocrisy and the hidden and the surface and how the War was billed and if terror has or hasn't increased and by what measure and if compared to no action or a different action, volumes it would take. But I rest assured you are very sure of yourself.

Anyway, I wonder if the guys and gals jumping out of the Towers or the family who was eating a pizza before being blown up, if their last thoughts were, "Terrorists can inflict dramatic local damage, but a well-organized society can withstand even sustained terror attacks." Though, surely, those will be your thoughts. And yes, no one cares about stopping terrorism. Just money and power. Jeez.

In sum, I couldn't agree with you less. But I'll leave it those better than me for a thorough fisk. Cheers.

[helen]

"Though, surely, those will be your thoughts." Should be "would be your thoughts." But really I didn't mean to imply anything. Asking for a do-over. I wish you and yours a long and safe life!

But your cynicism is really oft-putting. And your ability to see into the hearts of men and women "in charge," some talent.

[Teutonic Tribe Medicine Man]

Dear Fellow Mercer School Graduate:

Beginning to agree with you on this port thing. The UAR has been our friend and has NOT been calling for Israel's destruction and other standard Muslim boilerplate.

Bill O'Reilly agrees with you, too.

Teutonic Tribe Medicine Man
Trail Of Beers, Oklahoma

[Eric]

agree. short post on dual standard for CFIUS @ wampum.

[Doctor Slack]

A good and useful post. Thanks.

Helen: But your cynicism is really oft-putting

Yeah, you're going to have to forgive those of us on the Rabid Evil Bush-hating So-called "Left" for a little cynicism at this point. If you haven't figured out yet that it's warranted, you're living in either a cave or a bubble. Likewise for those who complain piously about how the So-called "Left's" sine qua non is demagoguery; spare me.

Having said that, I think Dennis is mostly right about the ports issue and his posts about it have been a valuable corrective to band-wagoning all over the blogosphere. For much the same reason, I wasn't impressed at all the fulminating over CNOOC a few months ago. The question of whether or not these deals are good ideas would seem to me to be up in the air, but I don't think there's any grounds to assume they're obvious examples of cronyism and incompetence on the Bush Administration's part. Atrios and others like him are wasting their time trying to push that angle, IMO; God knows there are more than enough real examples of cronyism and incompetence going on that the Dubai ports deal should not be attracting this level of attention.

[Helen]

The cynicism of Paradoctor goes beyond Bush or a particular moment in time. It is trained-up, a product of a particular kind of education, and it is brash and self-referential, full of delusion, strawmen, and wild conjecture, and if the good Paradoctor were better at it I'm sure he could even turn a buck or two with it; it is a narrow cave, a bubble, and is all the more oft-putting for its, and your, ability to say with such assuredness things to others more properly said to yourselves. Cave, indeed. But cheers, for what laughs s/he and you have given me, as is always the case when running into those "who regard themselves as cultured and well-schooled, modern and even forward-looking."

p.s. the sine qua non of the Dems isn't demagogy? Better tell Kennedy and Schumer, lil loser Shrum, your thespian Bill and his sidekick "plantation" Hillary. Carter and box-mate Moore. And the rest of the gang in the press and the academies who saying the same things over and over again think we will be made to believe somehow they are true. Quagmire indeed. But I do concede, Pelosi and Reid. Too boring to get the job done.

[Doctor Slack]

Helen: The cynicism of Paradoctor goes beyond Bush or a particular moment in time.

Do you know Paradoctor personally, or should I be filing this sentiment under "delusion", "strawman" or "wild conjecture"? Or all three?

p.s. the sine qua non of the Dems isn't demagogy? Better tell [list of Dems who couldn't hold a candle to the demagoguery of Rush Limbaugh alone on a slow day]

Well, I'm sure Rove would be glad to see his Kool-Aid still working on a few poor souls. My sympathies.

[MB]

The focus of this debate should first and foremost be on what drove this contract to be signed in the first place. In all the squabbling, which I'm sure the White House is happy about, what's been lost is that this deal is once again about cronyism. The mainstream media has largely been inept at pointing out this fact as well. It's about lining the pockets of their friends, two directly tied to the White House. The new spin and/or evolving debate that if you're against the deal than you're a racist Arab hater might be an effective way to ward off criticism of what's really going on (unless, of course, one's objections do arise from being a racist Arab hater -- but, honestly, you know the overwhelming majority of those voicing objections to this deal are not, and that it's merely a convenient rhetorical tool). Second, whether you agree or disagree that farming out operations of our ports to a company based in the United Arab Emirates doesn't make them any more vulnerable, can you really sit there with an straight face and tell me that this White House made this deal because they honestly believe it will IMPROVE security? And while you ponder that question, please put aside any rhetoric espoused by the likes of the completely inept Michael Chertoff, fresh off his drubbing by the House report on Katrina, who declared on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer this week:

"You know, we have to balance the paramount urgency of security against the fact that we still want to have a robust global trading system."

I don't think anyone with a working brain stem honestly believes that the thrust of this deal is to bolster our national security. I don't believe you do, either. You seem much too intelligent for that. And when you see the cronyism that actually drove the deal, their true intentions are splayed open, rendering the rest of this evolving (or devolving) debate moot. In fact, you say at one point, Would you rather have Halliburton operating the ports? No, I'd rather have a company that is competent rather than one being rewarded through their ties to the White House, especially when it comes to our national security.

[DennisThePeasant]

MB-

That's an impressive garble of the facts of the case you've got going there. Beyond that, the 'it's all about Bush' shtick is both inacccurate and simplistic.

And note that I never said I'd prefer having Halliburton operating ports... In your haste to arrive at your preordained conclusion, you misread what I actually wrote.

Read. Then think. Then comment.

[helen]

Hey Doctor Slack,

About Paradoctor's cynicism. Read the post again. I find it applying a way of looking at the world to circumstances, not circumstances raising a way of looking at the world. I applaud him for his erudition, though I think he should try to get his money back and start again from the basics. I don't know if Paradoctor is a true partisan or not, so I give him the benefit of the doubt that he applies his paradigm irregardless of the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania; but it is oft-putting nevertheless and sad, and cold. Bitter. Depressing. Wrong too. But again, quite a talent: seeing into the souls of all so well. A little shallower and he could earn so money.

As for demagogy. I don't think I said that the Republicans didn't engage in demagogy. We are a democracy. Demagogy is par for the course. But there are different kinds of rhetoric and for different purposes. Both parties are made up of many folks and a broad brush is not the best method. But as the Democrats think of themselves as speaking for the people and speaking truth to power, blah, blah, blah, I think it is a fair statement that they engage in demagogy at a more basic level. Sine qua non, a bit strong, yes. But I was all the ready to leave this kind of debate aside. But do note how this thread began. " I expect this kind of behavior from "the Right" but..." and then caves, and cults and hypocrisy and all the rest. I realize this is all kind of filler in some circles; But more substance and less cliche would be appreciated. Don't start and neither will I. I'll let you have the last word if you want. Cheers.

[a]

Today's moment of D'ing

[paradoctor]

Dear Helen:
I would willingly - joyously, even - be far less cynical about this administration had I any grounds to be. As is, merely to recite the major effects of his misrule is to compose a bill of impeachment.

I repeat my main points above:

The ruling classes of this country do not think terrorism is that big a deal. The proof is in their actions. Terrorism's victims think it a big deal, and rightly so, but our misrulers are big-picture guys - or so those sociopaths regard themselves.

And they are right, in this sense; the average American is in far more danger from Wall Street than from bin Laden. In fact, statistically you are far more in danger of being hit by lightning than by bin Laden.

Note, if you please, that New York went solid blue. The firefighters were particularly bitter. They know all too well what a Bush promise is worth.

If I am wrong, then please enlighten me otherwise. Let us reason together.

Work calls, gotta run.

[paradoctor]

Dear Helen:

Back from work...

MB and Dr. Slack correctly pointed out the cronyism angle, which is of course blatant, and also standard operation procedure for the Bushites. I forgot to mention it because it goes without saying; and also because I've grown, alas, numb to that sort of thing from those guys.

I repeat that this is a legitimate part of the outsourcing debate. I think you can make a fairly good case for domestic ownership of the ports of entry, on economic grounds alone.

Helen, about partisanship; I agree that power attracts the corruptible. Put not thy faith in princes! But normal politicians are _ashamed_ of their corruption; they do their misdeeds in secret, and when exposed they evade, deny - or go down. But the Bushites are not normal politicians; they are _proud_ of their crimes. You needn't look into the shallow depths of their souls to see this; they _say_ so. They don't admit mistakes; in fact they reward mistakes!

I am sorry that you find my words off-putting. But don't blame the messenger; I too found these facts off-putting. I didn't willingly accept these cynical conclusions, but was forced to them by observation and contemplation. I was taught cynicism by experts; the Bushites themselves.

Do not call me cold - at least, not in the heart. My heart is warm. But yes, my eyes are cold; the better to see with.

Looking back, I blame myself for being too trusting. If only I had a lower opinion of the Bush gang from the start, then I would have avoided a lot of heartache.

I thank you for your compliments about erudition and education. You overestimate me, but consider your words reciprocated.

You accuse me of certainty. Again you misunderstand; and again consider it bounced back to you.