Why George is an American traitor

[Imaginary Friend]

•Transcript: Lawmakers on 'FNS'•Firm Sues Over UAE Port Plan•Lawmakers Urge Greater Review of UAE Firm's Deal to Run Six U.S. Ports•Administration OK With UAE Running Six Major U.S. Ports

UAE Firm Struggles to Run Ports Against U.S. Opposition

Monday, February 20, 2006

WASHINGTON — Executives at Dubai Ports World are intensifying a public relations effort this week as lawmakers ratchet up protests against the Bush administration over allowing the United Arab Emirates-owned firm to run six U.S. ports.

The government in Dubai will lobby port officials along the East Coast, and DP World's chief operating officer — American shipping executive Edward H. Bilkey — is expected to travel to Washington this week for meetings on Capitol Hill and elsewhere.

Michael Seymour, president of the North American arm of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation (P&O), the company DP World wishes to buy in order to run the six ports, said in a statement that the London-based P&O "is itself a foreign-owned terminal operator that has long worked with U.S. government officials in charge of security at the ports to meet all U.S. government standards, as do other foreign companies that currently operate ports in the United States."

"We are confident that the DP World purchase will ensure that our operations continue to meet all relevant standards in the U.S. through ongoing collaboration between the port operators and American, British, Australian and port security officials throughout the world," Seymour said.

Lawmakers are upset that P&O, which runs 100 ports in 19 countries, is being purchased by DP World with the approval of the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), a 12-member panel chaired by Treasury Secretary John Snow and comprised of members of the departments of State, Defense, Justice, Commerce and Homeland Security. (continued @ link)

I'll make a prediction. George is suppose to leave office after his 2nd term is up, in 2008. Before that we will have another "incident" that will again sacrifice American lives on domestic soil. The point of origin for this will be the East coast. Whether the measure itself is carried out there or not, not withstanding.

After the dust clears, because we've been cultivated to fear even our neighbors after 911, George will declare martial law because of the incident, thereby assuring his term of office indefinitely! With the swipe of a pen we shall be imprisoned in our own country by the forces we are led to believe we elected to the powers to do so, and after this, by Federal law, Congress is prohibited from even reading the order that wrought martial law, for 90 days!!!

Now, if one is Christian and believes God made the heavens and the earth in but 6, imagine what can be effected in 90!

We will not travel in our sovereign nation without our "papers". (sound familiar?) We will see our local military forces out in force on our public streets, armed to the teeth. The right to own fire arms of course is suspended under ML, which means that gun registration measure of years ago will come back to bite us right in the toosh, as Federal armed forces go door to door, with a manifest, searching for those registered weapons. And for the sake of National security we will be fingerprinted and photographed, our retina's will be scanned and those that are in compliance with this new National authority, will be required to appear at a local government checkpoint for identification purposes. Implanted with a chip that designates they are in the "system", and are thus "permitted" to exist under the new laws.

Those that do not comply will be hunted down as persons of interest, and arrested by what is the contemporary "secret police", never to be seen again. (To this day there are Americans in Federal prisons. Detained under the U.S. Patriot Act, which makes null and void the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Therefore, no right to an attorney, no right to a speedy trial, no right to a phone call.) Trade will be contingent on whether or not one is in that "system". Money, easily counterfeited, will be suspended. All trade will therefore rest on that chip in one's hand, so as to buy or sell in the system.

There are already military personnel at our local base being implanted with chips. And one woman I know has witnessed the chip scan , much like one imagines swiping their debit card at the register, in use in her neighborhood. No money, just a swipe of the hand under an infrared censor completed the sale. The monies subtracted from the customers bank account.

Did we vote for this? No! No one elected this into office. But it's here. And for those that imagine "the secret government" is a delusion of paranoia and conspiracy theorists, realize that that is deluded thinking. Because the Federal laws make clear it exists! FEMA is that power. They can, by federal law, declare a National emergency under the auspices of their jurisdiction.

God, Goddess, Bless America and save us from ourselves.

Edited February 20, 2006 by Imaginary Friend

[__Kratos__]

No foreign nation/company should be in control of our ports.

Edited February 20, 2006 by __Kratos__

[PLO]

and likewise america should not be in control of any over seas ports?

[__Kratos__]

and likewise america should not be in control of any over seas ports?

If those countries don't want to, then... there you go. It's really up to the country in question.

[PLO]

like iraq?

[__Kratos__]

like iraq?

When I said "It's really up to the country in question." I was directing that to all countries on this plant.

[PLO]

so then its a good thing for saudi to control international ports on american soil to take advantage of interesting customs and excise loop holes concerning chiefly oil and guns?

seeing as how both countrys seem willing.

[TooFarGone]

Wow, I didn't think a persons words could be twisted so badly.

Thanks PLO, for showing me otherwise.

[Celumnaz]

and likewise america should not be in control of any over seas ports?

I don't know that America owns any ports in the world, even the ones on our own soil I think are ALL foreign owned.

[DR. YO]

After the dust clears, because we've been cultivated to fear even our neighbors after 911, George will declare martial law because of the incident, thereby assuring his term of office indefinitely! With the swipe of a pen we shall be imprisoned in our own country by the forces we are led to believe we elected to the powers to do so, and after this, by Federal law, Congress is prohibited from even reading the order that wrought martial law, for 90 days!!!

Somebody obviously lacks optimism. Cheer up, have a beer.

[Bella-Angelique]

All countries should maintian their own ports for the good of their people.

Maybe one day they will.

[__Kratos__]

Update: Bush backs Dubai port deal, vows veto

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Tuesday strongly defended a deal that would let a United Arab Emirates-based company run six major U.S. seaports, telling reporters that he would veto any bill to hold up the agreement.

Bush, who has yet to veto a bill during his administration, warned that the United States is sending "mixed signals" by attacking a Middle Eastern company after the American ports had been run by a British firm for several years.

Lawmakers who have called for the deal to be blocked need to "step up and explain why a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard," he said.

The administration has faced a wave of criticism this week over its decision to let a subsidiary of maritime management firm Dubai Ports World run ports in New York and New Jersey; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Baltimore, Maryland; Miami, Florida; and New Orleans, Louisiana.

The company recently acquired the British-based firm that currently directs commercial operations at those ports, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation. The takeover by Dubai Ports World means that it will be in charge of those operations.

"I don't understand why it's OK for a British company to operate our ports but not a company from the Middle East when we've already determined security is not an issue," Bush said.

Bush made his comments to reporters Tuesday aboard Air Force One, which he rarely does. His forceful statement came just hours after Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist urged the administration to block the deal until Congress could scrutinize it.

Frist, a Republican from Tennessee, called on the review committee that approved the deal to open its deliberations to congressional scrutiny.

"If the administration cannot delay the process, I plan on introducing legislation to ensure that the deal is placed on hold until this decision gets a more thorough review," Frist said in a written statement Tuesday.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, an Illinois Republican, and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, also joined that call as lawmakers from both parties expressed concern over the deal.

"No one can understand it, Democrat or Republican," said Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat and a leading critic of the agreement. "Average citizens, everywhere we go, are stopping us and saying, 'What is going on?' "

Critics say the takeover raises security concerns, noting that two of the hijackers in the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington came from the UAE, and that the hijackers drew funds from bank accounts in Dubai, the financial center of the Persian Gulf.

But the Bush administration argues the deal was properly approved and poses no security threat, and that the UAE is an ally in the war on terror. (Watch what role the UAE plays in the war on terror -- 1:57)

"Nothing in this acquisition has anything to do with the responsibility for security in American ports," State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said. "That remains very firmly in the hands of the Department of Homeland Security. What we're talking about is the management of some port operations."

The agreement is scheduled to take effect March 2. It was approved by the federal Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, which includes representatives of the Treasury, Commerce and Homeland Security departments, the FBI and the Pentagon.

Frist, a potential presidential contender in 2008, said the committee's approval process "needs to be more transparent and include a role for Congress."

"These deals could have a major impact on America's security, the protection of which is our greatest responsibility," he said in a written statement.

Bipartisan concern

Lawmakers swarmed over the issue Tuesday, criticizing the administration's approval of the contract and calling for a more extensive review.

Pelosi called for hearings into the deal "and others pertained to foreign ownership."

"In the meantime, Congress must put an immediate halt to this deal that the administration hastily approved in secret without input from the Congress or state officials and without a thorough review of how it might affect America's security," she said.

Rep. Peter King, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, and Schumer already have introduced a bill to put the deal on hold.

King, a New York Republican, said the UAE "has had unusual ties to al Qaeda in the past," and he called the administration's review of the decision "totally unacceptable after 9/11."

"My office today has received more phone calls on this than any issue in the 14 years I've been in the United States Congress, and every one of them is in support of what Senator Schumer and I are doing," he said.

Ereli said Homeland Security officials have had good relations with Dubai Ports World, and he said the United States has a "strong and effective partnership" with the UAE "from a counterterrorism point of view."

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Florida Republican, said Congress has until March 2 "to ask a lot of questions, demand some answers and shed some light about these transactions."

And Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican and the chairwoman of the Senate Government Affairs and Homeland Security Committee, said the agreement received "far less scrutiny than it should have."

"Although the UAE is an ally in the war on terrorism, the country has historically been used as a base of terrorist operations and financing," she said.

Two Republican governors -- George Pataki of New York and Robert Ehrlich of Maryland --- have indicated they may try to cancel port lease arrangements, according to The Associated Press.

A Dubai Ports World spokesman said Monday that the firm has received all the necessary regulatory approvals and that the security systems in place at the ports would only get better under the new management.

"We intend to maintain or enhance current security arrangements, and this is business as usual for the P&O terminals," the spokesman said.

A port security expert said fears that the agreement would reduce U.S. security are based on "bigotry" against Arabs and that "shameless" politicians are creating an issue they think will resonate with the public.

"This whole notion that Dubai is going to control or set standards for U.S. ports is a canard ... is factually false," said Kim Petersen, head of SeaSecure, a U.S.-based maritime security company, and executive director of the Maritime Security Council, which represents 70 percent of the world's ocean shipping.

Source

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's look at the ethics of the ME, compared to the British...

I'd still rather have the ports in US control.

[Imaginary Friend]

U.S. company trying to block Arab control of ports

WASHINGTON (AP) - A company at the Port of Miami has sued to block the takeover of shipping operations by a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates.

It is the first U.S. courtroom effort to capsize a $6.8-billion sale already embroiled in a national debate over security risks at six major ports affected by the deal. (source link)

[PadawanOsswe]

I think its allright, a British company owned the ports before the U.A.E

and we have very good relations with the U.A.E, they fight the War on Terror with us.

and The U.S. Coast Guard will be entirely in control of security operations at the ports.

The Presidents reasoning for this move?

“I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, ‘We’ll treat you fairly.”’-President George W. Bush

there's your answer.

he's trying to improve relations with foriegn nations. and in this day and age. we definatly could use some better relations.

so long as the Navy and Coast Gaurd are still patroling our waters, I'm happy.