Skip to main content

Did you think they were gone for good?

The answer's "not just no, but HELL NO!"

Check today's edition of The Hill:

Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), a close ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), is calling elements of a Peru free-trade agreement (FTA) signed by the Bush administration a threat to national security. The chairman of the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee has warned Democratic leaders on trade that the deal grants a United Arab Emirates company the ability to invest in U.S. ports.

Murtha has asked Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) to demand that the administration alter the free-trade deal it negotiated with Peru to prevent enterprises there from investing in U.S. landside port activities.

If the administration fails to make such changes, Murtha and Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) charge that a "trade pact-granted right" to invest in U.S. ports would be handed to Dubai Ports World (DPW).

How would this happen?

Murtha and Taylor argue that the issue is particularly sensitive with the pending Peru FTA because Dubai Ports World has acquired a 30-year concession to develop and operate a new container terminal just outside of Lima. The move makes DPW an enterprise in Peru that under the FTA would be able to make investments in the U.S., according to the congressmen.

The "administration," though, argues that the "essential security" provision in this and other trade deals allows the U.S. to unilaterally prevent such things, if deemed necessary to, well, its "essential security."

But:

Murtha and Taylor, however, argue the provision is insufficient since Peru could in turn sue the U.S. under the deal’s dispute-settlement system. A successful challenge could cost the U.S. millions in taxpayer dollars, the two congressmen say.

Big Time Republican donors exposed as terrorism suspects (even as the GOP keeps their money), and now caught trying to shoehorn DPW back into the U.S.

Wonder of wonders, it's another bad week for the GOP and the "administration." And we haven't even hit the Friday news dump yet.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:41 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Fair not "free" trade should be the mantra (10+ / 0-)

    And trade with Africa should be fair too! So far its too one way in the US interests and this isnt in the long terms interests of either continents

    •  Free Trade Agreements with Poorer Courntries (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BobOak, sherlyle

      Allow U.S. corporations to continue to ship more jobs overseas.  Poorer countries with free trade agreements with the U.S. will compete for the "most favorable labor conditions" to attract U.S. companies.

      "Great men do not commit murder. Great nations do not start wars." William Jennings Bryan

      by Navy Vet Terp on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 10:10:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It seems... (5+ / 0-)

    Republicans love Terror Money™

    "Some people may be running (Steve Holt) who may tell you that we don't face a real threat from terrorism, I am not one of those." - Steve Holt

    by cookiesandmilk on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:44:48 AM PST

    •  Do you know anything about Dubai at all? (0+ / 0-)

      This just proves this is playing to the "evil muslim" stereotype.  

      Don't like XOM and OPEC? What have YOU done to reduce your oil consumption? Hot air does NOT constitute a renewable resource!

      by Asak on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 11:57:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Where is the DNC press release (5+ / 0-)

    attacking the GOP from accepting money from this fundraiser?

    http://www.keen.com/jiacinto For DC related travel advice, please visit that link.

    by jiacinto on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:45:02 AM PST

  •  I've got to give them credit (8+ / 0-)

    Trying to sneak the DPW deal back in, after everybody and his brother vilified the administration for it last year, and made it clear we would have no part of it...

    ...I must say, that takes balls.

    Not to mention idiocy.

    Joe Lieberman likes to be called an "Independent Democrat". I like being called a "sexual dynamo".

    by Arjun Jaikumar on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:46:18 AM PST

  •  DPW is not a terrorist organization (8+ / 0-)

    Dubai Ports World is a legitimate company and their original deal was fine.  The rampant xenophobia that both the Democrats and Republicans displayed was sickening.  People in the rest of the world thought we were out of our minds.  For once GW Bush had something right.

    •  I wouldn't go so far as to say he had something (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Asak, FrankFrink

      right, he just didn't have it wrong .. !

      But otherwise, you are on the money here. The insistence that DPW must be associated with terrorists is on it's face bigoted and quite counterproductive.

      If DPW is assumed to be a terrorist organization, then what Arab owned or operated business is not?

      Can we survive furious George's 'Quest For Stupidity'TM?

      by shpilk on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:51:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What is Dubai... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Asak, shpilk, FrankFrink

        ...if not one gigantic port! If we have proven anything recently it is that we are very good at putting people in charge of things that have no business being there.

        A lot should go into making a decision as large as who controls our major ports, but to disregard DPW for no better reason than geography just reinforces to the world how little we know about running our own country well.

        Thank you ArkPanda!

        Maybe this world is another planet's hell. -Aldous Huxley

        by Lenina Carton on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:56:12 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I have a customer in Dubai, (0+ / 0-)

          who is a major importer of electronics; he went to school in my state {NH}, and he's no terrorist, either.

          If he were reading this web site, I think he'd be quite upset, seeing that the people that handle all of his freight are by implication being called terrorists by default.

          Dubai is one very busy commercial center, and the port operations are crucial to it's success. DPW is certainly qualified.  

          Can we survive furious George's 'Quest For Stupidity'TM?

          by shpilk on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 10:02:29 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  This may be true (0+ / 0-)

            Then let them do their deals in the light of day.

            DPW as the shipping capital of the New World Order...... okay.

            And the capital is..... Baghdad or Tehran.

            Why do you think we are at war.

            Overthrow the Government ~Vote~

            by missliberties on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 10:23:22 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No it isn't (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              shpilk, Lenina Carton

              Dubai is part of the UAE.  As the region goes, the UAE is actually pretty progressive, allowing the practice of other religions, etc.  All muslim countries are not some monolith.  DPW is not part of some vast illuminati conspiracy.  

              Don't like XOM and OPEC? What have YOU done to reduce your oil consumption? Hot air does NOT constitute a renewable resource!

              by Asak on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 12:04:22 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I think the better question is... (0+ / 0-)

              why do YOU think we are at war?

              Maybe this world is another planet's hell. -Aldous Huxley

              by Lenina Carton on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 08:34:22 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  What are you smoking? (12+ / 0-)

      #1-- Foreign owned companies should not be running US Security operations, period.

      #2-- I don't care if its a little "xenophobic" - here is an issue which fully exposes Bush's hypocracy on terra.

      Bush will be impeached.

      by jgkojak on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:52:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  who reviews the ledgers (4+ / 0-)

      this isn't about DPW being a legit company or not.

      But how can it be guaranteed that DPW won't be infiltrated, and the ledgers of shippers be inspected at will by criminal cources

      why can't this functioned be handled by US entiites?

    •  Have to agree (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shpilk, Catte Nappe

      Really. what's the big deal? DPW operates one of two container terminals in the port where I live  And that would be Canada, just a couple hours north of Seattle.

      DP World Vancouver operates Centerm (one of two container terminals in Vancouver's inner harbour) based from the Vancouver Port Authority. In addition to containers, the facility handles pulp and general cargo.

      And their website even touts the proximity to the USA.

      The terminal is ideally located on the south shore of Vancouver's inner harbour, with unsurpassed ground transportation links. Rail service is provided by CN, CP, and Burlington Northern Sante Fe. Trucks are only 12 minutes from Number 1 Highway, while the US border and Interstate 5 are less than an hour away.

      They also own and operate Canadian Stevedoring which provide stevedoring services at every port in BC.

      They also operate ports in Australia and Germany, who I guess along with Canada must be 'soft on terrerism' or something.

      Let the fearmongering cycle begin again.

      The Grasshopper Lies Heavy

      by FrankFrink on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:58:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  One World Govt (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      madgranny

      One Shipping Organization.

      Why do we have to rely on DPW in the first place.

      Because we import everything we need.

      The tactics are ugly at best.

      If it is all so above board, then let them do their business in the light of day.

      If people fear the terrorism, then blame the cause. It was BushInc.  that marketed the fear. Now that fear is affecting the markets.

      Overthrow the Government ~Vote~

      by missliberties on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 10:11:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  DPW was going to be able to do business (4+ / 0-)

      in this country, but not be subjected to US law and that was the real issue.  The public attached themselves to the Middle East terrorist thing, but the real problem was that they were going to essentially control all of our ports and could not be challenged in a US court - which is dangerous for a lot of different reasons.  Bush did NOT get this right at all.

    •  DPW Fronts for a Foreign Monarch (0+ / 0-)

      DPW is owned by a foreign monarch, the emir of Dubai. Not just any foreign monarch, but one who protects terrorist finance in his banking hub.

      Which is a fact known to anyone paying attention the first time around. Bush got this one wrong, like all the rest. Funny how you didn't notice...

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 01:15:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yeesh... (6+ / 0-)

    now I'm a pretty big free-market capitalist supporter here, but some things must be kept national.  Ports, airports, militarily strategic areas etc.

    If they want to sell a piece of investment (say 10%) to outsiders, that would be okay.  But wholesale turnover is madness (although the Brits might argue otherwise).

    The greed of men destroys the wealth of nations. Visit: DemosMedia

    by ivorytower on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:46:59 AM PST

  •  we are reliving an issue that I find potentially (4+ / 0-)

    driven by fear and hysteria.

    I'm in the minority here, asking that people prove that DPW is necessariry a terrorist organization, I guess.

    Your link with Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari being accused of funding terrorist camps has what to do with DPW again?

    Can we survive furious George's 'Quest For Stupidity'TM?

    by shpilk on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:47:44 AM PST

    •  What old fashioned times you live in... (3+ / 0-)

      I'm in the minority here, asking that people prove that DPW is necessariry a terrorist organization, I guess.

      In this day and age, you have to prove that they don't.

      Good luck.  I oppose the wholesale turnover of ownership based on national security interests, not any stupid DPW is a terror organization argument.

      The greed of men destroys the wealth of nations. Visit: DemosMedia

      by ivorytower on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:50:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Both can be disastrous for the Republicans. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mary4

      Especially those who've staked their entire political careers on fear and hysteria, but cannot resist the lure of easy cash.

      •  The example of (0+ / 0-)

        Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari {and let's remember that he has been accused and not convicted, as well, FWIW}  is one thing, but conflating him to be associated with this issue of port security isn't quite the way to do it in my opinion.

        Can we survive furious George's 'Quest For Stupidity'TM?

        by shpilk on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:55:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Are you confused? (0+ / 0-)

          Well, straighten up, then.

          •  Sorry Kagro, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Asak

            but lines like this

            Big Time Republican donors exposed as terrorism suspects (even as the GOP keeps their money), and now caught trying to shoehorn DPW back into the U.S.

            are a bit over the line .. if Bob Hebert or Frank Rich had this in one of their articles, I'd be calling them out on it, too.

            Rhetorically might be effective, but the little bit of journalism I learned in college tells me something is wrong with that, the implication is just not right.

            When articles are on the right hand of the screen, it's one thing .. when they are front paged, I'm sorry .. I have to hold them to a higher standard.

            Can we survive furious George's 'Quest For Stupidity'TM?

            by shpilk on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 10:09:19 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Remember, this is the regime of the "1% doctrine" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kagro X

      That 1% drove the insanity of the Iraq invasion.  It's driving the addled cuckoo-land of Iran war-planning.

      So how does the 1% doctrine apply to the sale of National Security Infrastructure to a foreign company?

      As I said above, whether the deal is good or bad is irrelevant in our political climate.  It's complete and utter hypocrisy.

    •  Xenophobic fear is separable from nat. security. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Inland, goverup1, Molly Martinez

      Americans can be hateful racists, I agree, and this issue could trigger that response in some people.  

      To wit, OH NO, BROWN ARAB PEOPLE RUNNING OUR PORTS!!!  BOMB IRAN!

      But I see a different and legitimate concern here, namely that one of our most vulnerable national security areas is being controlled by a non-US corporation. Dubai or Denmark, our port security should be controlled by a U.S. corporation with heavy oversight by our gov.

    •  We are reliving an issue (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Molly Martinez

      that perfectly describes how foreign countries and entites are used to avoid abiding by US laws.

      International laws might be the answer.

      At every turn, the free marketeers operate to secretly pull the wool over our eyes. Why the secrets?

      Overthrow the Government ~Vote~

      by missliberties on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 10:28:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's a brick bat that we should use daily (5+ / 0-)

    I mean I'm getting fucking sick and tired about stories about war with Iran, and the GOP getting money from a terrorist sympathizer, and Global warming is a liberal conspriacy and whatever other bullshit the God Damn GOP comes up with

    Make this attempt to bring the Dubai Port deal a fucking brick bat to smash every Republican in the face with day in and fucking day out.

  •  Republicans love ANY money (6+ / 0-)

    Even when it comes from terrorists or terrorist supporters.

    "Sometimes, money trumps freedom."

    -- George W. Bush.

    "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." -- Abraham Lincoln

    by chumley on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:50:31 AM PST

  •  Can We Just At Least Agree Quietly (4+ / 0-)

    To drop the populist but xenophobic red meat once the White House is under control as well? I don't suggest making this sort of political faux pas, or similarly pursuing what is clearly a form of international high-society pork, but...

    Let's just not make the same mistake the Republicans have made in their "War on Terror" in masking our own scent too thoroughly with that of our prey. They may have cornered the market on truthiness, but let's not lock it up on redneckiness and churchiness.

    /Concern trawling.

    9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

    by NewDirection on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:51:29 AM PST

  •  you can write and cajole and even complain.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pandoras Box, Molly Martinez

    about all the terrible horrible unamerican anti constitutional and just plan disgusting things Bush keeps doing to our nation BUT if you refuse to take the next step and call for IMPEACHMENT....then its just more hot air being blown at the WH for naught.

    they dont care what we think, they dont care what we want, they wont play by the rules, they wont adhere to ANY of our laws....the ONLY way to stop them is to impeach them.

    IMPEACH THE CHEERLEADER... SAVE THE WORLD! © ®

    by KnotIookin on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:53:23 AM PST

  •  wow (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pandoras Box

    Jimmy Carter is right.

    by LandSurveyor on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:53:31 AM PST

  •  Is this Dailykos? (3+ / 0-)

    "All Arabs are terrorists"?

    "Arabs are going to use the ports to commit terrorist acts & fund terrorism"

    Is this dailykos, freerepublic or littlegreenfootballs?

    What's up?  Stormfront's server was busy?

    •  Yep (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      opendna

      The whole thing was absurd from the beginning.

      How about this:

      Murtha has asked Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) to demand that the administration alter the free-trade deal it negotiated with Peru to prevent enterprises there from investing in U.S. landside port activities.

      Murtha has asked Rangel to alter the deal so that no foreing companies operating in Peru can.. create jobs in America.

      "I have a dream" King Jr.

      "I have a book deal" Perves Musharraf

      by allmost liberal european on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 10:03:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  RE: DPW (7+ / 0-)

      The problem isn't that Dubai Ports is a terrorist organization (which it is not, but instead DPW is a government controlled entity); its a larger instance of saying, "Do we, as the United States, want to outsource utilities and functions to the control of other nations that have direct and possibly dire national security implications to the U.S?" That is the problem I have with any of these kinds of deals, since I for one do not believe we should cede control of our ports and their security to any other nation than our own. I mean, by that logic, should we be relying on another country to run our Department of Defense?

      •  exactly (6+ / 0-)

        I don't want Dubai operating our ports.  Nor do I want England or Germany or Japan operating our ports.  It's a national interest thing, not a race thing.

        I guess anyone can be a winner if their definition of victory is flexible enough.
        -The DM of the Rings

        by Leggy Starlitz on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 10:06:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  But companies from other nations (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          HarlanNY, shpilk, missliberties

          i.e. foreigh-owned, already operate in US ports and have for some considerable time.

          In Los Angeles, port spokeswoman Theresa Adams Lopez says, foreign operations include Yusen Terminals Inc., a subsidiary of Japanese shipping giant NYK Line, established in 1885.

          The Port of Seattle has five container terminals. Three are run by U.S. companies, one is managed by a South Korean company, and the fifth is managed by a company partly owned by the Singapore government.

          The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey owns five primary cargo terminals, three of which are run by foreign firms. The terminal that would be run by the Dubai-based company is operated in conjunction with a Danish firm. The terminal is leased to the two companies and is five years into the 30-year lease, port authority spokesman Steve Coleman says. The other two main cargo terminals in New York and New Jersey are run by the same Danish firm and by a Hong Kong-based company.

          And actually in the LA basin, 7 of the 13 terminals in LA/Long Beach are foreign owned and operated, mostly companies from Asian nations.

          The Grasshopper Lies Heavy

          by FrankFrink on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 10:17:17 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That is spot on, but... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Leggy Starlitz

            ..I still think its a bad idea to have any access points to the U.S. controlled by companies which are foreign owned, and specifically those which are owned by foreign governments. Just because it happens to be going on currently does not make it make sense from a national security standpoint. I guess it becomes a question of what we want to put at the forefront of any operator who can bid on these kinds of deals: Must be U.S. owned or who does it the best (no matter where they are headquartered and who owns 'em). In my mind, its like a trade-off that we are making without discussion: Efficiency versus security.

            •  Well, the end result of this sort of thinking (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Asak

              is 'Fortress America'. Foreign companies will think twice about investing in America. It's that simple. And maybe they start thinking, 'why should we reciprocate?' Do not US-owned companies control significant interests in other countries?

              The bottom line is that most of you are dealing in fear on this topic, and fear is supposed the tool of the other side.

              I'm no cheerleader for capitalism and all, and certainly not for Republican values (I'm a Canadian socialist - near commie, damn it) but this is all very shortsighted and self-defeating. You're just shooting yourselves in the foot. But, do what you will anyway. I'm out of this discussion. Can't stand being around the smell of fear.

               

              The Grasshopper Lies Heavy

              by FrankFrink on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 11:18:31 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Fortress America? (0+ / 0-)

                Uhhh I will strongly disagree; as a matter of basic defense, the U.S. does not outsource key resources and needs to other foreign countries. Other foreign countries do exactly the same thing. For example, by the logic anything should be free to outsource to foreign national companies, should we likewise turn design and assembly of military weapon systems to any foreign company that we deem to be the best? I'm sorry, but to me its simply a common sense issue rather than a "Fortress America" one as you put it, whether you agree or not.

        •  And jobs in America FOR Americans, and (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Molly Martinez

          who collect taxes on their profits, and do we get to screen their employees for terror connections (or drug sales, or smuggling humans), and if they work here do they live on the docks or leave after work with full access to disappear into our huddled masses yearning to breathe free?  
              Privatizing our infrastructure is INSANE. I'm sure we must have SOME Americans capable of working our ports.  We aren't all stupid slaves ---- YET.
              FAIR TRADE NOT FREE TRADE. If we need homeland security at all, we need our ports americanized.  No private firm or foreign nation owned firms, should be able to legally shut down our shipping, highways, water supply, electric, etc. ---- which they could if they OWN THEM!!!!!   DUH
              Our nation could afford to buy them back -- by destroying less planes, bombs, etc. with useless wars. Consider port employees part of CIVIL DEFENSE. And our NATION would collect profit from keeping ourselves safe and ABLE to trade. Maybe we could use the profits to make it safe for Americans in the PORT OF NEW ORLEANS.
              Privately American owned WATER SUPPLY mysteriously shut off to South American citizens when our plutocrats wanted to influence their national elections some years back.  Ask Hugo Chavez. IT CAN AND DOES HAPPEN. Let's prevent it here?

          Unless all votes count, none count. REVOTE FL 13!

          by Neon Mama on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 11:07:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Leave the ILWU alone. (0+ / 0-)

            They've got the best game in the world. If you try and make them federal employees, they'll strike and riot (and I don't blame them).

            •  Oh Geesh---No way am I anti-Union!!!! (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              opendna

              My point was to keep foreign owners from being allowed to use their nationals and their rules, people with no stake in defending our nation from what CAN slide through.  Delete any non-union conotation. I grew up in WWII with volunteer Civil Defense block captains etc. --- the point was workers with an attitude of vigilance--- didn't mean becoming federal employees.

              Unless all votes count, none count. REVOTE FL 13!

              by Neon Mama on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 06:51:59 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yeah, I know. (0+ / 0-)

                That's one of the weird things about the ports though: everyone who unload the ships, moves the containers around or inspects them is a US citizen. It doesn't matter if it's DWP or GE, it still gets unloaded and handled (on the West Coast) by one of the most militant unions in North America.

                It's the people who pack the containers overseas (before they ever see a port) that we have to worry about. =^P

      •  . (0+ / 0-)

        Well, if other have better weapons, wouldn't you want to buy those weapons?

        If you want to add security measures, fine. But that has nothing to do with DPW. Innocent until proven guilty?

        "I have a dream" King Jr.

        "I have a book deal" Perves Musharraf

        by allmost liberal european on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 10:07:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm just wondering what would happen if (0+ / 0-)

        any of those "friendly allies" who now own some of our ports can be counted on as permanent allies. What if one or more of them became our enemies, at some point?  Regimes change, politics change, situations arise that could make current allies become future adversaries.

        That opens a whole 'nother can of worms. And,it seems to me, a compelling reason that American ports and their security should be controlled and owned by Americans.

        If you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there.~~Lewis Carroll

        by Molly Martinez on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 11:13:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  P.S. (0+ / 0-)

      But I do find the irony delicious that this administration, after all the fear mongering it has done of all things Arab, now tries again to bring in an Arab controlled company to run some of our ports. Just enjoy watching this administration being hoisted on its own figurative petard.

    •  I dunno. (0+ / 0-)

      Ask Sue Myrick why she said "HELL NO!"

      If you want to debate the straw men, go where the straw is.

    •  "Arabs"? (0+ / 0-)

      WTF?  DPW has a lousy security reputation ... in Dubai.
      .

    •  Who are you quoting? (0+ / 0-)

      I have no idea where you got them from, but not dkos.

  •  First we have to form a government of the people, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BobOak, Molly Martinez

    by the people and FOR the people.
    The actions of the right wing are way ahead of their intelligence, and they cannot be permitted to subvert the integrity of Congress. They are not going to get away with this subversion.
    RICO Statutes place them squarely in the middle of corrupt practices sattutes.

    Anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) laws can be applied in an attempt to curb alleged abuses of the legal system by individuals or corporations who utilize the courts as a weapon to retaliate against whistle blowers, victims, or to silence another's speech. RICO could be alleged if it can be shown that lawyers and/or their clients conspired and collaborated to concoct fictitious legal complaints solely in retribution and retaliation for themselves having been brought before the courts.

    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -E.Burke

    by ezdidit on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:57:44 AM PST

  •  How do you spell O V E R S I G H T? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    missliberties, BobOak, Molly Martinez

    That great thing about the Democrats now back in control of Congress - someone else to keep tabs on what Bush and his cronies are trying to sneak in.

  •  I am so sick of these people (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BobOak, OWTH, Pandoras Box, Molly Martinez

    are their backdoor deals.

    What is this? Government by mafiosa rule. Thugs only need apply.

    Everything they do is sneaky, behind the scenes, economic blackmail

    against the American people.

    Sunshine. We need sunshine.

    Or a coup d'etat here in the US to get these criminals out of our country.

    Overthrow the Government ~Vote~

    by missliberties on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 10:04:43 AM PST

  •  They stop at NOTHING! (4+ / 0-)

    Good God, they are so intent on selling off the United States as fast as they can in any method possible.  Look at this, if they can't get something through in one bill/trade agreement, they simply move it to another, or put it is as an unread amendment.

    What happened to national sovereignty?  

    Who can see our grandfathers rolling over in their graves, giving up their lives in WWII, fighting for our nation, to see this?

    To see the US sold off like a nice steer at auction?

    Do you think other nations are giving up their sovereignty, let's say....China?  

    Hell no!

    Is the rest of the world interested in removing it's national interests, holding hands and becoming one nice friendly "global village"?  Hell no!

    @!*)&$*)&!!!!

    http://www.noslaves.com http://forum.noslaves.com

    by BobOak on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 10:13:23 AM PST

  •  More on DPW ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BobOak

    Rock n' roll baby! Freedom of speech! - Doug Life Management Skills

    by lifexpert on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 10:13:33 AM PST

  •  To those that don't realize most of our ports are (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HarlanNY, FrankFrink, Molly Martinez

    already controlled by foreign interests, I suggest they do a bit of research ..

    The Saudis 'control'

    http://sweetness-light.com/...
    Baltimore, MD
    Halifax, Canada
    Newport News, VA
    Houston, TX
    New Orleans, LA
    St. John, Canada
    Houston, Texas
    Savannah, GA
    Wilmington, NC
    Port Newark, NJ
    Brooklyn, NY

    to play the race and fear card .. "19 of the 20 were from what country again?" Shouldn't people in Baltimore, Brooklyn and Houston etc be in the streets, right now?

    The 'communist' Chinese 'control' Long Beach CA, as well as a number of ports on the East and West coasts ..

    If we cannot trust a foreign commercial entity, then better start by kicking out the Saudis and the Chinese, right? China has most of it's nukes pointed where, again?

    Can we survive furious George's 'Quest For Stupidity'TM?

    by shpilk on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 10:23:24 AM PST

    •  WSJ Kool-Aid (0+ / 0-)

      but it's too late now.

      So our choices are. Live with it or live with it.

      Kind of like the Iraq War.

      The indignation is real and it is there for a reason.

      You do realize that by globalization and free markets seeking out the cheapest form of labor or shipping or whatever, the US must of necessity lower it living standards.

      Overthrow the Government ~Vote~

      by missliberties on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 10:33:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  A key problem with "Free Trade" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Molly Martinez

        is that corporations are free to trade and employ workers whereever they wish.  But, workers are not free to follow the work, due to legal barriers in most countries that prevent non-nationals from seeking employment. (The EU nations are an exception, but only within member countries.)

        Even if workers could lawfully follow work to other nations, the economics and family considerations make it impractical unless one is truly desperate.

    •  OK. (0+ / 0-)

      Kick 'em out.

      Or else, have Bush come out and continue to make his case for more foreign ownership of ports. Fair enough to expect from him, right?

      •  Why bother, since every word that comes (0+ / 0-)

        out of his mouth is either a lie, or a damned lie.  Most Americans don't believe anything he says, any more.  The rest of the world doesn't believe it, either.

        If you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there.~~Lewis Carroll

        by Molly Martinez on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 11:22:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Past bad decisions do not justify more of them (2+ / 0-)

      It would be important to know if operations at the ports you mentioned are carried out by a foreign private corporation or a government owned and controlled enterprise, such as Dubai Ports World.  

      In any case, it is foolish to allow a foreign government control of elements critical to U.S. national security - no matter what country is involved. A key reason why that is a bad idea is that, unlike private corporations, foreign governments are exempt from transparency requirements unless they agree to them.  But, in the Dubai case, the original agreement allowed Dubai to control the paperwork, and hence limit the ability of US authorities to ensure oversight and accountability.

      The "race card" claims are propaganda thrown out by the Bush administration and its cronies.  This doesn't preclude some of those opposed to the deal from being biased; but, that would be true on any issue and detours discussion away from the justifiable concerns.

    •  Agreed. (0+ / 0-)

      Simply put, it's ridiculous to pretend like companies based in those countries are separable from their government.

      I hope the reason why those countries are controlling US ports, by the way, is because they have more fucking dollars then they know what to do with.  But having managed to sell stuff to the US doesn't make them aligned with US security interests.

  •  Of Course the Saudi's do not employ those... (0+ / 0-)

    Pesky union types that vote against the GOP on a regular basis.

    Noooooo, that would not have anything to do with it

  •  Send a thank you letter to Rep. Sue Myrick !!! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    goverup1

    Here's mine:

    February 21, 2007

    The Honorable Sue Myrick
    6525 Morrison Boulevard, Suite 402
    Charlotte, NC 28211

    Dear Representative Myrick,

    As a constituent of Hon.Anthony Weiner (D-NYCD-09), please accept my thanks for your open letter to George Bush in re the PERU FTA that I read about today.

    Our Administration has forward-looking plans for a United States of North and South America.  The very idea of it is quite attractive, and it foretells of an idealistic and  sensible movement for the virtual end of the destructiveness of war itself.

    Indeed, the ideal of 'ONE WORLD Under God' (instead of 'One Nation Under God, indivisible...') comes to mind.  The problem is that establishment of sovereign borders in this way is a subversion of our individual democratic rights as US citizens.  The current Administration is dead-set on commercial policies that usurp our Constitutional rights in favor of the practical establishment of Corporatist leadership and control under this new sovereign US of North & South America.

    It would be democratic if their strategy for the establishment of this new 'government' were discussed and debated.  With such ideals of high purpose, I can easily envision a strong centrist grassroots movement.  Perhaps these ideals could be ratified by our elected officials and Congresspersons.  I am certain that the global warming threat is of similar urgent centrist attention.

    Instead, the Administration has first organized a cabal of think tanks and multi-national corporate sponsors; a small cadre of political allies or insiders, and an elite oligarchy comprised of the biggest multi-national corporate Republican fundraisers throughout the world.  They have even harnessed the great commercial endeavors of foreign governments, and their process belies their ultimate aim of the virtual shredding of the Constitution and the establishment of a plutocracy without so much as a peep from the citizenry and Congress, until you came along.  

    The very undemocratic, unlawful tactics by which the Neoconservative movement is advancing its goals, is treasonous, insofar as it seeks to undermine the integrity of our sovereign borders without the establishment of treaties that must be passed by our Congress.

    Indeed, the Neoconservative movement, and our very own Administration ought to be prosecuted under RICO Statutes because of the illegal tactics deployed by their adherents.  This would seem to be a new and very effective way to quickly dispel the myth of left-leaning radicals that  Republicans are corrupt corporatists and war mongers.  
    Of course, they are not, and you have made that abundantly clear at this time.

    Again, please accept the sincere thanks of one citizen from 'across the aisle.'

    Respectfully,

    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -E.Burke

    by ezdidit on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 11:32:42 AM PST

  •  Wow, i feel better (0+ / 0-)

    the "Administration" says not to worry. This endorsement alone is more than reason to reject the treaty.  Let's see, when was the last time anyone could trust this "Administration", how about Jan. 2000?

  •  Can't this liberal racism ever go away? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HarlanNY

    I can't believe we have to hear about this Dubai bullshit again.  Can't you guys see that it is just buying into the stereotype of muslims being "evil"?  If this was about a German company running the ports no one would give a damn.  You guys should be fucking ashamed!  

    Don't like XOM and OPEC? What have YOU done to reduce your oil consumption? Hot air does NOT constitute a renewable resource!

    by Asak on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 11:57:03 AM PST

    •  Well, I give a damn (0+ / 0-)

      As a homeland security specialist, I'm appalled that any foreign nation would control critical infrastructure.  That's why it's called "critical."  A nation that was involved in the rougue transfer of nuclear technology from Pakistan deserves to be treated with particular caution.

  •  No foreign company primarily owned by (0+ / 0-)

    their coutry's govt, as is the case in DPW, should own access to sentive points of entry in the US. I don't care if they're owned by Britain, Saudi Arabia, Canada, or any other country.

    When another country effectively has controlling interest at a location that is a point of entry into the US, it undermines the US ability to effectively and efficiently monitor and protect those points of entry.

    -6.13 -6.15 There are lies, damn lies, accounting lies, statistical lies and Republican lies; nothing tops the GOP

    by ecostar on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 12:06:37 PM PST

  •  Foreigners own ALL ports (a plea for accuracy) (0+ / 0-)

    A sample of DWP competitors working in the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles and their nationality*:

    • Hanjin (South Korea)
    • COSCO (China)
    • TraPac (Japan)
    • Yusen (Japan)
    • Evergreen (Singapore)
    • APL (Singapore)
    • APM (Netherlands)
    • Yang Ming (Taiwan)

    As far as I can tell, the only American companies in the ports are some of the stevedoring companies (who hire Longshoremen), and (US) government-owned terminals operators. On the west coast it doesn't matter who owns anything, it's all worked by the most exclusive Union on the continent: the ILWU.

    If the argument is that a state-owned company should not be allowed to work in our ports, say it in so many words. Saying that foreign-owned companies shouldn't control our transportation infrastructure is just silly: they already do! Are we going to kick out DHL? What about all those foreign airlines flying into the US? Who owns the ships arriving in the US (hint: everyone BUT Americans). Saying that terrorist will be handling cargo is nonsensical, unless you're calling the ILWU terrorists (which management might do during contract negotiations).

    I'm glad this issue plays so well to the general public, because it sounds like pure ignorance to most people in the transportation industry.

    •  that, too. (0+ / 0-)

      If the argument is that a state-owned company should not be allowed to work in our ports, say it in so many words

      One could argue that some companies are stateless.  But for dpw and chinese companies.....no.

  •  Enron Ports World (0+ / 0-)

    DPW is trying to sell off to AIG Investments the port operations that cause the US resistance to its overall US operations: New York/New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, Tampa, Fla., and New Orleans.

    So is that their "cutout" strategy? To pretend to hand over to "AIG", the trusted American insurance corp, but really to control their "investment" through a Peruvian backdoor?

    This Bush guy really has to go. And all the Republican lobbyists/lawyers who really produce these setups for Enron, DPW, Global Crossing, and the rest of their smokescreen industry, should be paraded through Congressional hearings. Put that on their resume.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 01:11:16 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site