Port Jihad Update from Bill Gertz in the Washington Times, :
Several Bush-administration security officials expressed concerns yesterday that terrorists could infiltrate seaports through a United Arab Emirates company that is vying to manage six U.S. ports.Intelligence and security officials opposed to the deal with Dubai Ports World said ports are vulnerable to the entry of terrorists or illicit weapons because of the large number of containers that enter U.S. territory, regardless of who manages them.
A Persian Gulf state such as the United Arab Emirates could provide an infrastructure for terrorists to penetrate U.S. security as part of a major terrorist operation, the officials said.
From Frank Gaffney (on NRO):
President Bush's announcement Tuesday that he would support the effort of a United Arab Emirates-owned company, Dubai Ports World, in its bid to take over a lease for part of the Port of New York and other major U.S. seaports — even to the point of vetoing legislation that would block the deal — is as regrettable as it is untenable.
President Bush has dug in his heels on a fight he surely cannot win. The only political figure of note who has fully supported his position publicly seems to be former President Jimmy Carter — a salutary reminder of the latter's dismal judgment on national-security matters. Meanwhile the list of elected officials, Republican (including the leadership of the Senate and House) and Democrat alike, making clear their adamant opposition grows.
This sentiment on Capitol Hill reflects the overwhelming, common-sense attitude of the vast majority of the American people. They are horrified at the prospect of entrusting the management of sensitive U.S. port facilities to a government that allowed most of the operational planning and financing of the 9/11 attacks to occur from its soil.
If this drama is allowed to play out fully, several things are predictable:
Legislation will be enacted by veto-proof margins in both the House and Senate to block the DP World takeover of the port terminal and other management contracts currently held by the British company, P & O.
If so, the president will be unlikely to cast his first veto in a futile attempt to block the legislation. The deal will, therefore, be aborted.
Relations with the UAE, which has been helpful in some aspects of the War for the Free World post-9/11 — the factor that seems to have trumped all others in the secretive deliberations of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) about the DP World takeover, will be damaged unnecessarily.
This will be particularly so in light of the fact that the congressional investigations of this transaction promised by people like Rep. Peter King and Sen. Susan Collins, the Republican chairmen respectively of the House and Senate Homeland Security Committees, will surely delve into the nature and conduct of Dubai Ports World. If the following response to a posting on the WarFooting.com blog last Thursday by a self-described, but anonymous, former employee of the UAE company is any guide, that won't be pretty:
The US and the West in general are making a serious mistake if they hand over control of 21 ports to an Arab company, owned by an Arab government.
As a former employee of the DP World I can offer a unique insight into the goings on of this company, and I'm afraid if you scrape beneath the surface, it's not all its cracked up to be.
Did you know that several times a year, staff receive a company memo informing them that, for that particular month, one day's salary will be deducted and given to a Palestine "charity"!!! Staff are allowed to refuse by informing Human Resources Department, but no one ever did — knowing that this would lead to being over-looked for promotions and/or not having your contract renewed. I recall one poor Indian dock-side labourer on [a] $500-a-month [salary] complaining that he couldn't afford to make the payment as he had his wife and three children back in India to feed. He promptly was fired!
They have a reputation and a track record of not honouring staff contracts for expatriates, and I know of several employees who didn't receive their end contract bonuses or whose personal effects were not repatriated back to their home country. I mean, what can you do when the company is owned by the government of UAE and Shari'a law applies?
The author goes on to remind us of some of the United Arab Emirates' unsavory behavior: "the UAE bans Israelis from visiting or working in their country, and maps of the world have Israel blackened out. Even a non-Israeli who has visited Israel and has an Israel visa in their passport, is denied entry into the UAE." He also observes DP World made much on their website about "one of its senior executives, Dave Sanborn, being nominated by US President George W. Bush to serve as Maritime Administrator, a key transportation appointment reporting directly to Norman Mineta, the Secretary of Transportation and Cabinet Member."
Some, like my friends at the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, take a libertarian view: The deal makes business sense and, hey, security is the U.S. government's job, not the company's. The truth of the matter is that the job of performing port security is already problematic; an arrangement that affords opportunities to put personnel and cargo in positions where they can do us harm and involves reading people into the government's port-security plans who may not be on our side amounts to what the lawyers call an "attractive nuisance." These are opportunities that are not likely to be passed up by terrorists who have operated from the UAE in the past.
These considerations argue for the president to do as he did with Harriet Miers — namely, recognize that a strategically and politically insupportable mistake has been made and cut his losses. The CFIUS process that put him in this untenable position — and that has been responsible for innumerable other bad decisions about national security-damaging foreign investments must be overhauled. And port security must be made a priority, not something we contract out to one-time, and possibly future, hosts to anti-American terror-wielding Islamofascists.
January 18, 2004
U.S. Eyes UAE Banks in Terror Money Probe
Associated Press
Banks in this financial hub of the Arab world remain a key focus in the investigation into terror funding despite moves to tighten reporting rules, freeze accounts and control informal money transfers, U.S. and Arab officials told The Associated Press.
The reason: Dubai's history of shady transactions and the difficulty of tracking a matrix of legal and illegal free trade.
About half the $250,000 spent on the Sept. 11 attacks was wired to al-Qaida terrorists in the United States from Dubai banks, U.S. Treasury and Central Bank of the United Arab Emirates officials said.
Al-Qaida money in Dubai banks also has been linked to the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania blamed on Osama bin Laden.
In addition, before Saddam Hussein's ouster, this Persian Gulf emirate was a favorite transit point for smugglers sneaking past U.S.-led naval patrols enforcing United Nations trade sanctions. And it was through Dubai that Russian arms dealers supplied bin Laden's Taliban backers in Afghanistan before the U.S.-led war ousted their Islamic government.
The FBI found that the UAE's banking system filtered much of the money used for the operational planning before the Sept. 11 attacks, and many of the hijackers traveled to the United States through the UAE. On top of that, the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist.
UAE Company Hosts Hamas Web Site
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=19347&only
According to Israel’s Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, a company in the United Arab Emirates provides hosting services for one of the leading web sites of Hamas
Newsweek:
Radical imam Omar Bakri Mohammed, whose pro-Jihad agitation led British authorities last week to ban him from their shores, now is likely to set up a new base in either Lebanon or the United Arab Emirates
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8987716/site/newsweek/
Associated Press:
U.S. Eyes UAE Banks in Terror Money Probe
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/000670.php
9/11 -- UAE Funds Transfer -- Money is Moved to the Hijackers
http://cryptome.quintessenz.org/mirror/usa-v-zm-ind.htm
21. On or about June 29, 2000, $4,790 was wired from the United Arab Emirates ("UAE") to Marwan al-Shehhi (#175) in Manhattan.
22. On or about July 19, 2000, $9,985 was wired from UAE into a Florida SunTrust bank account in the names of Mohammed Atta (#11) and Marwan al-Shehhi (#175).
23. On or about July 26, 2000, in Germany, Ramzi Bin al-Shibh wired money to Marwan al-Shehhi (#175) in Florida.
24. On or about August 7, 2000, $9,485 was wired from UAE into a Florida SunTrust bank account in the names of Mohammed Atta (#11) and Marwan al-Shehhi (#175).
25. On or about August 30, 2000, $19,985 was wired from UAE into a Florida SunTrust bank account in the names of Mohammed Atta (#11) and Marwan al-Shehhi (#175).
26. On or about September 18, 2000, $69,985 was wired from UAE into a Florida SunTrust bank account in the names of Mohamed Atta (#11) and Marwan al-Shehhi (#175).
UAE: WEBSITE NUCLEAR BOMB CLAIM, ATTRIBUTED TO AL-QAEDA
http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Terrorism&loid=8.0.55388412&par
Saudi/UAE Al-Majd TV:
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16814
“the fact that [the U.S.] entered [Iraq] … makes it every Muslim's duty to go out against them, not only the Iraqis… Jihad today has become an individual duty that applies to each and every Muslim… "
Hmmm.... maybe it's time to overthrow the Bush government. I am feeling French today.... coup d'état, anyone?
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/
Since a column raising an alarm about CFIUS’ decision appeared in this space last week, three
new factors have come to light that compound the strategic folly of the UAE deal:
* First, in addition to the six affected ports mentioned above, two others would also have part of their operations managed by DP World – on behalf of none other than the U.S. Army. Under a
newly extended contract, the owner of P and O will manage the movement of heavy armor,
helicopters and other military materiel through the Texas seaports of Beaumont and Corpus
Christie. How much would our enemies like to be able to sabotage such shipments?
* Second, while advocates of the stealthy CFIUS decision-making process point to the involvement of the Defense Department in its DP World decision, it is unclear at what level this
bizarre proposition was reviewed in the Pentagon. Many top jobs remain unfilled by presidential appointees. Past experience suggests the job may have fallen to lower-level career bureaucrats who give priority to maintaining good relations with their foreign “clients,” like the UAE.
* Then, there is the matter of financing the DP World takeover of Peninsula and Oriental. The
UAE evidently intends to raise nearly all of the $6.8 billion price for P and O on international
capital markets. It must be asked: Who will the foreign investors be, and might they have malign
intentions towards the U.S.? If American sources of capital are being sought, will the possible
danger this transaction may create for this country be properly disclosed? For that matter, will the underwriters, Barclays and Deutchebank, reveal to prospective funders the real risk that the deal will ultimately fall through?
In fact, that seems virtually certain now that talk radio, the blogosphere and the public have
become aware of – and white hot about – this transaction. Members of Congress on both sides of
the aisle and of Capitol Hill have made known their determination to prevent the transfer of
control of U.S. ports to the UAE. In particular, Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Charles
Schumer have been quick to seize on this issue as an opportunity to burnish their national
security credentials at the expense of President Bush and his party.
The US called off a strike against Osama Bin Laden because members of the UAE royal family were visiting him in Afghanistan.
UAE royals, bin Laden's saviours
March 25, 2004 12:04 IST
The Central Intelligence Agency did not target Al Qaeda chief Osama bin laden once as he had the royal family of the United Arab Emirates with him in Afghanistan, the agency's director, George Tenet, told the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States on Thursday.
Had the CIA targeted bin Laden, half the royal family would have been wiped out as well, he said.
The 10-member bipartisan commission is investigating the events leading up to the September 11, 2001 attacks in the US.
http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/25osama.htm
"Some, like my friends at the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, take a libertarian view: The deal makes business sense and, hey, security is the U.S. government's job, not the company's. "
On a superficial level, prostitution makes business sense too.
However, if your john happens to be jack-the-ripper; is it simply a matter of haggling over the price?
Perhaps -- as long as you are the pimp who merely negotiates the deal.
"He (Bush) became aware of it over the last several days," McClellan said. Asked if Bush did not know about it until it was a done deal, McClellan said, "That's correct."
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060222/D8FU8GK02.html
So who the hell is running this country anyway?
Obviously NOT the President; Obviously, NOT the Congress!
Finally, a few government muck-e-mucks have the cajones to call a pig a pig and in this case a terrorists a terrorist.
You do not pay you enemies to guard your country.
The war with Islam is inevitable.
Prepare, be armed be ready.
The Texican.
Freedom. The only choice at any cost.
Various parts of the US gov have been giving the country away for some time now. Even the National Parks are under an umbrella of interaction and control from the UN. The UN considers such Parks as Yellowstone, Yosemite, and others, as world heritage sites...according to the UN these Parks are owned 'primarily', by the state. Years ago I spoke to an aide in Rep Wally Hergers office, who also wondered what the word 'primarily' meant.
Somehow the people have to put a stop to politicians giving away/selling, America. It's a violation of constitutional law for any official to give away, sellaway, bargin away, treaty away, loan away or any other away, any measure Of US sovereignity. It is not theirs to 'away'. In the US each citizen is the soveriegn, the US is not (in theory anyway)owned by the Prez or any official. To give away US sovereignity is theft. There are fines and prison sentences for officials who do this...as far as I know, no official has ever been charged with this, yet many are guilty of it. Ports, banks, parks, you name it, even Nafta...turning any of these places over to Islamics is totally unacceptable.
I wonder if the folks in the UAE have thought of the down side of this deal? I.E.
having a large bullseye printed on the global map if there are attacks
(successful or intercepted)through these ports? Any takers?
Counter Thought:
================
"Keep your friends close, and enemies closer." The best way to defeat Jislam is to engage the average Joe on the street - and that works best through money, through Jobs.
Lets demonstrate that the door swings both ways - if your country plays ball with us, then we can do business with you. As a plan, it works. Many people state that it seems obvious that an Al-Queda type could eventually worm his way through and ensure some WMDs slip through port Newark. Isnt it just as obvious that the inverse is true? CIA operatives could infiltrate in reverse? Tag and observe would-be jihadi's to catch a wider net?
I dont often agree with GWB, but, on this one I do. Lets play ball!
-MikeMontana@hotmail.com
"Isnt it just as obvious that the inverse is true? CIA operatives could infiltrate in reverse? Tag and observe would-be jihadi's to catch a wider net? "
So, there are no CIA operatives in Iran right now? None in UAE? None whatsoever in Syria, China, Russia, Isreal, etc., etc. ?
Then the sale of US ports to our enemies, is the only possible chance we have of gleaning intelligence?
Mike, I'll have my secretary get you a first-class ticket on the next flight to Tehran.
You're hired!
I love it!!!
Now we have all of the Republicans, Democrats, and about every citizen in the U.S. saying that profiling is ok....and it is.
So now can we stop patting down the little old ladies in a wheelchair at the airport and start focusing on who the enemy is? It looks like we have momentum....keep it going.
It's about time they call a spade a spade...
Islam is terrorism. No difference. Time to seek and destroy those wacked out fanatics systematically. I love how the story was posted here a week and a half before Congress was getting inflamed. Way to go Robert.
This will make people even more happy, DP world, services our warships of the 5th fleet when they port in the UAE. So if an Aircraft Carrier breaks down in the Middle east, we call DP world for service! That has to be a bigger security issue, then this port uproar.
The Longshoreman’s Union is not going anywhere that I know of. So our dock workers wont suddenly turn all Arabic.
There is a difference between a company and a country. How does pointing out all the things the country does wrong reflect on the company. There is a large amount of people that believe our invasion of Iraq is wrong, does that make my American company bad?
Port security has always been and will always be managed by the United States, not port management. When I launch my boat from San Pedro or Oxnard, I get boarded not by port management, but by the US Coastguard armed to the teeth.
That is absolutely correct, it doesn’t matter who manages them. We are at risk today.
The uproar should be about our current risk, not some perceived future risk.
Doesn’t DP world have a business reputation to uphold, if they were to somehow circumvent US Customs, US Coastguard, Longshoremen and their own on-site management to launch a terrorist attack against us, wouldn’t that destroy them as a company? Would it make a difference if some Americans or Europeans worked for this company?
Dubai Head Office
Edward H. Bilkey
Chief Operating Officer (Retiring)
George Dalton,
General Counsel
Joost Kruijning,
Senior Vice President
Operations
Matt Leech,
Head of Business Development
MikeMontana -
I don't think W has the wits to play the game.
"How does pointing out all the things the country does wrong reflect on the company"
UAE owns that company.
Witness
any proof? I have only read they are a UAE backed company and I make a distinction between supported and owned.
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060222/D8FU8GK02.html
What is "proof?"
Tracing down the ownership is easy enough.
Witness
I haven’t been able to prove they are state-owned, I have seen articles that say state-owned and some have just said UAE backed. Proof for me would be something more official than a newspaper article.
wednesday, february 22, 2006
UAE Think Tank Founder Hails Mothers of Suicide Bombers
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=19361&only
Courtesy of MEMRI TV, the founder of the “Creative Thinking Center” in the United Arab Emirates salutes the mothers of suicide bombers
Al-Hamadi: Haven’t we heard about the blessed mothers in Palestine who go to their sons and prepare them for martyrdom for the sake of Allah? The son sets out and on his way, he calls his mother from his cellphone, and tells her: “I’ve arrived at the place, I am going in.” Then he says, “I’m ready,” and the mother guides him and encourages him until she hears the bombs go off over the cellphone. Then she bows, thanking Allah for granting her son martyrdom for His sake. Then she utters cries of joy and refuses to accept condolences. She does not open a grieving tent, but rather a congratulation tent, because Allah granted her son martyrdom. Such Hansaa-like women have appeared again in our times. Some of these women commit martyrdom themselves. They may be married women or students, but even so, they are not tempted by this life, and they carry out martyrdom operations for the sake of Allah.
UPDATE at 2/22/06 11:42:17 am:
Here’s a special report at MEMRI on another UAE “think tank” located in Abu Dhabi, that until recently was funded directly by the Arab League and the UAE government, and played host to many US and European politicians: The Think Tank of the Arab League: The Zayed International Centre for Coordination and Follow-Up.
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sr&ID=SR1803
Witness
Even if it is proven that DP world is UAE owned, the fact that the US Coastguard and US Customs handles our port security, still has yet to be properly addressed.
"Even if it is proven that DP world is UAE owned, the fact that the US Coastguard and US Customs handles our port security, still has yet to be properly addressed..."
Wonderful. I have my own security, thanks just the same.
Even the most superficial trace produces ample evidence, but as you suggest -- it is a none issue for you; so then, all's well.
"DPW is 100 percent owned by the government of the Emirate of Dubai via a Dubai government holding company called the PCFC (Ports, Customs, and Free Zone Corporation). The government holding company is headed by the ruler of Dubai, Shiek Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, who took over on Jan. 4, 2006, following the death of his father, Sheikh Maktoum."
Dubai Ports World is government-owned
Posted: February 20, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
Dear President Bush:
What part of an "inside job" do you not understand??
Even if this is just a "business as usual" oversight by rote bureacrats, and no direct security risk is involved, the symbolism of rewarding a Muslim 'country' (UAE / group of emirates) with the ability to buy into any sensitive sector of the U.S. economy -when their loyalties are always to the Koran and the expansion of Imperialistic Islam- is delusional and politically imbecilic.
Islam is out to conquer the world for Allah.
Slowly and smiling, or quickly with a knife at the neck, the methodology is immaterial to their "holy" warriors. The aim remains the same.
They can be allowed to invest in non-strategic areas of the economy, but ports, etc. are unwise places to permit investment by the self-declared opponents of our Civilization.
It signals our intellectual weakness, our supine acceptance of mere greed over enlightened self-interest, our misunderstanding of the goals of our global challengers, and the inability to grasp the signal given by this apparent surrender of our ports to those with nothing but contempt for our culture and beliefs.
If there is a profit to be made in our own security, we should make it, not those who have sworn to replace us, kill us, or enslave us.
Have THESE guys been turned down yet? It seems like a no-brainer, but now I'm wondering. Has anyone heard?
http://www.timesofoman.com/newsdetails.asp?newsid=24922
Iran wants direct civilian flights to United States
TEHRAN –– Iran has asked the United States to allow direct flights between the two countries after a break of more than two decades, a senior civil aviation official said on Thursday.
The request comes as the United States and its European Union allies are pressing for the Islamic Republic to be reported to the United Nations Security Council where it could face possible sanctions for its nuclear programme.
"We sent a letter to the relevant American officials on Wednesday, announcing Iran's willingness to resume direct flights," Nourollah Rezai-Niaraki, head of Iran's Civil Aviation Organisation, told state television.
He said the decision to make the request was taken by hardline Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad due to demand from the large Iranian community living in the United States.
"They have repeatedly complained about wasting time and losing their baggage on connecting flights," the official said. Iranian airliners have been barred from the United States since the US government broke ties with Tehran after the 1979 Islamic revolution.
An Iranian civil aviation spokesman said Ahmadinejad's decision did not signal any move to try to improve relations between the two old foes.