Port security should have been an issue before Bush decided to sell it

[ProSense]

Posted on Mon, Feb. 20, 2006

Key lawmaker says U.S. should freeze port deal

By WIll Lester
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- U.S. terms for approving an Arab company's takeover of operations at six major American ports are insufficient to guard against terrorist infiltration, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee said Sunday.

"I'm aware of the conditions and they relate entirely to how the company carries out its procedures, but it doesn't go to who they hire, or how they hire people," Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., told The Associated Press.

"They're better than nothing, but to me they don't address the underlying conditions, which is, how are they going to guard against things like infiltration by al-Qaida or someone else? How are they going to guard against corruption?" King said.

King spoke in response to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff's comments Sunday about conditions of the sale. King said he learned about the government's terms for approving the sale from meetings with senior Bush administration officials.

more ....

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/centredaily/news/local/13914905.htm?source=rss&channel=centredaily_local

????? Maybe he should have been less concerned with counting the votes for Bush.


It was mentioned many times before:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=472697&mesg_id=472697

[Edward Copeland]

1. This thing is smelling worse all the time

On top of the bipartisan criticism of this plan, including Tom Ridge, a poster on my blog tipped me off to this angle: a key executive of the UAE company was appointed by Dubya in January to a key transportation department post overseeing maritime issues and serving under Norman Mineta.

Here is the link to the company's own press release:

http://www.dpiterminals.com/fullnews.asp?NewsID=39

[havocmom]

3. Good catch. Thanks for the link

Big welcome to DU! :toast: Looks like you are gonna be a real asset around here. Hope to see many more posts from you.

[ProSense]

4. Very interesting. Thanks for the link.

There definitely needs to be an investigation into this deal.


And welcome Edward Copeland.

[RazzleDazzle]

5. This needs to be a thread of its own. Please post separately.

And welcome to DU.

[havocmom]

2. Some of us have been harping on port security for years

If DHS were truly concerned with the security of America, there would be a bit more concern regarding inspection of containers as a start!

Since they won't put $$ into the boots on the ground that would take, I'm thinking they are not worried about terrorists at all. They do love to spend the $$ on trinkets sold by the big corporations that run things here on planet earth. And when no terror attacks are acknowledged (white guys doing random violence doesn't seem to count as terror) they pat themselves and their private contractors on the back then award more $$ to 'heck of a job' kind of guys without proper oversight.

The real fear I have about the sale of control over major American ports is this: There are no nations. National laws are moot. Beyond a pretense at acknowledging national identity, they do not even recognize nation-states exist! All is corporate will and empowerment. All policy is based on corporate balance sheets. This latest travesty shows me their progrom is further advanced than we are aware of.

America,it's getting late. Do you know where your country is?