In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

The Hits Keep Coming

zuzu

That port security deal? The one that sailed right through without the legally-mandated investigation? The one that will provide a nice little windfall to the Secretary of the Treasury? The one Bush angrily defended by threatening to veto any legislation that put a stop to the deal to actually, you know, perform the legally-mandated investigation?

It’s even worse than you thought.

WASHINGTON – The Bush administration secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. It chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.

And what were those routine restrictions?

The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.

Okay, this one just raises all kinds of hairs on the back of my neck. You’re going to let them operate SIX U.S. ports and not require them to keep business records on U.S. soil? Or to designate an American citizen (who would be subject to a federal court’s jurisdiction anywhere in the world) to respond to the government’s requests?

I’m involved in a big-ass fraud litigation with a defendant who’s been playing hide-the-ball with document discovery for the past five years. They just got sanctioned today for blowing off court orders to cough up documents. Getting relevant records from them has been like pulling teeth — and these records are in Connecticut, AND our client is well able to afford our fees for chasing them down. I can’t even imagine what it would be like to be, say, an injured seaman trying to get discovery from a company not required to keep records in the U.S.

In addition, letting them keep records off U.S. soil and not designate an American citizen to respond to the government’s requests means that the government is going to be hindered in any investigation of the company’s operations. They could easily just refuse to comply, they could alter records, destroy them, whatever. Is that the best idea for a company charged with port security for six major U.S. ports?

But most importantly, this is a completely standard and routine requirement for foreign companies doing business in the U.S. Why was it waived in this case?

29 thoughts on The Hits Keep Coming

  1. Because! That’s why! If Dubya says it’s OK, then the rest of us are supposed to nod our heads and forget all about it. Remember: this Administration has a monopoly on patriotism, so whatever its drones say, goes…and besides, they’ve never, ever made any mistakes!

  2. Again, to play devil’s advocate (b/c it’s fun).
    Now, I am not sticking up for Dubya as I am not a fan.

    However, I am mildly alarmed at the disdain people have been expressing over the ports deal. Has this company had ties to terrorists? Or are we singling them out simply b/c they are from the Middle East? or from a predominantly Muslim region?

    I think it is wise not to do business with terrorists, but I have yet be convinced that this company is linked to Al Qaeda.

    It appears that New Yorkers assume any company from Dubai is a terrorist threat.

    As we once said to Dubya about the WMDs in Iraq, where is the proof?

  3. I’m finding the liberal reaction to ‘them’ highly amusing and Amanda the answers to your questions are: No, Yes, Yes and there is no proof, we don’t need proof when the people are a-rab.

  4. At first I agreed with you, Amanda M., and I still do, in regards to the terrorist assumptions.

    But aside from that, this deal is looking worse and worse. I mean, this particular post doesn’t even mention terrorism or the country itself; it focuses explicitly on the business of the deal, which seem shady at best. We should require careful regulation of any company that controls our ports, and the fact that there seems to be some relaxing of the rules in this particular case is confusing at best.

    I suppose I should know better than to not be suspicious of the Bush administration.

  5. Agreed with Amanda.

    The post does a good job of focusing on the business aspects. That’s a good point for liberals. Also, focusing on the incompetence of the administration in handling this deal – which the post also addresses – is a good point. Liberals should focus on the business end, the incompetence of the process, the way that the administration set this fight up with it’s own constituents via it’s past rhetoric, and leave the xenophobia to the Republicans who care to take it up. We’ll be better off approaching it that way. We’ll also be better off if we remind our colleagues who take the xenophobic approach what “liberal” means.

  6. Amanda, as I said on the prior thread: Dubai Ports World isn’t a Dubai-based private company. It is a UAE state entity. Why do I think the UAE supports terrorists? 1) they recognized the Taliban when only three governments did so; and 2) members of the UAE royal family visited Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan. If the government of Luxembourg had ties to OBL and the Taliban, I would be up in arms about their state agency running our ports.

  7. What Thomas said.

    There’s also the problem of allowing any non-US government entity to control port security. Airport security was taken away from private, US-owned companies because it was considered too important a job to contract out to private companies, which have their own interests. Our ports have long been known to be a weak spot in the security of this country — why should airport security have been federalized, and not port security? Is it just that airports are very visible to the general public, and ports aren’t?

    It appears that New Yorkers assume any company from Dubai is a terrorist threat.

    Care to explain that? Because that’s pretty damned insulting and a gross distortion of my two posts.

  8. Please remember the “enlightened-after-the-fact” mindset that most Americans–especially politicians have adapted. Those in D.C. will wait until something horrible happens as a result of this, then they’ll stand around dumbfounded, asking themselves, “Oh, how could this ever be?”

    Think 9/11. Think Katrina. The gifts will keep on giving…

  9. “…a company charged with port security …”

    My understanding is that this company would NOT be in charge of security, only the day-to-day logistical operations.

  10. Which includes hiring security officers and carrying out the security plans per the Coast Guard’s guidelines:

    It is true that at the ports run by the Dubai company, Customs officers would continue to do any inspection of cargo containers and the Coast Guard would remain “in charge” of port security. But, again, very few cargo inspections are conducted. And the Coast Guard merely sets standards that ports are to follow and reviews their security plans. Meeting those standards each day is the job of the port operators: they are responsible for hiring security officers, guarding the cargo and overseeing its unloading.

  11. Jesus!

    You souldn’t farm out our security to any private company, foreign or otherwise. I suppose the freaking Coast Guard is up for sale.

  13. Don’t you see?

    once these companies are freed from these hassles like “document discovery” and “routine regulation,” they’ll be free to cgenuinely practice their love with the American ports infrastructure. They’ll stop performing “defensive security” when that tort burden is finally lifted from them.

  14. “People don’t need to worry about security.” – W

    The rest of the quote:

    “Unless we’re using it as part of our fearmongering tactic to get elected.”

    There’s a lot to be worried about with this Madministration, not just security.

  15. Mistake after mistake. Crime after crime. Lie after lie. Someone please tell me why this man has not yet been impeached?? What are we waiting for? (This is, of course, a rhetorical question. Dubya’s impeachment in the republican congress just ain’t gonna happen).

  16. “People don’t need to worry about security.” – W

    The rest of the quote:

    “Unless we’re using it as part of our fearmongering tactic to get elected.”

    There’s a lot to be worried about with this Madministration, not just security.

    The actual rest of the quote:

    This deal wouldn’t go forward if we were concerned about the security of the United States of America.

    I shit you not. It’s the first sentence after the bold lede.

  17. Fudge. For the second day in a row, I flub my tags.

    The following should be blockquoted in my #16 comment:

    “The rest of the quote:

    “Unless we’re using it as part of our fearmongering tactic to get elected.”

    There’s a lot to be worried about with this Madministration, not just security”

  18. It is true that at the ports run by the Dubai company, Customs officers would continue to do any inspection of cargo containers and the Coast Guard would remain “in charge” of port security. But, again, very few cargo inspections are conducted. And the Coast Guard merely sets standards that ports are to follow and reviews their security plans. Meeting those standards each day is the job of the port operators: they are responsible for hiring security officers, guarding the cargo and overseeing its unloading.

    Here’s a counterpoint to that quote.

    I think it is a far larger problem is that there is a security vacuum at US ports than the nationality of an offshore corp that runs port operations. I’ll have to second Magis that it’s absolutely appalling that this is in private hands of any nationality.

  19. Other ryan, Mayer’s article is all non-sequitur which “debunks” straw-men, not the concerns raised by folks here. It states as an unsupported assertion that the UAE is “getting better” on terrorism, but does not address the OBL or Taliban issues I raised, addressing instead the low-hannging fruit of terrorist funding, which is says was not state sponsored (true, AFAIK, but beside the point). He makes a big deal that DPW will not “buy” the ports, just acquire the contracts for their operations. Someone somewhere didn’t understand this, but everyone in this discussion seems to get that. Frankly, nothing Mayer said adds to the discussion, except that you apparently think his ill-informed or unsupported assertion that opposition to the deal is rooted in xenophobia supports your unsupported assertion that opposition to the deal is rooted in xenophobia.

    This is simple.

    1) several major US ports have operations contracts with a foreign private company that, under applicable law, had to pass a lot of screening to get them.
    2) that company is being bought by a UAE state enterprise.
    3) the UAE recognized the Taliban, and its royal family visited bin Laden in Afghanistan. It is at best mixed on opposition to Islamist extremism.
    4) the operational contracts will include the hiring and supervising of dock workers and security personnel, who are part of a security network that also includes grossly inadequate participation by DHS.
    5) steps in the ordinary (and legally mandated) review process for foreign operators of US ports have been skipped for this UAE state entity.

    Where’s the xenophobia in that? In fact, my position that I don’t care if the ports are run by a clean U.S. company or a clean foreign company, Arab-nation-based or not, is a whole lot less xenophobic than the assertion that the port operations should not be in private hands: if they are not in private hands, certainly you’re not asserting that they should be in the hands of a foreign government (which is what is proposed here); and you must therefore be asserting that we should kick out the current, foreign operators and replace them with the U.S. government. Now, who’s a xenophobe?

  20. Thomas, logic is only convincing when the premises are agreed upon – numbered bullets notwithstanding. Your conclusions are disrespectful and obviously not what I’m asserting. I posted the link as a counterpoint, not to say one point of view is right and the other is wrong. Like most contended facts, the truth is more often in the grey than in the black and white.

    The xenophobia demonstrated by the alarmist reaction to this situation is pretty clear to me. Feel free to disagree. Like racism, sexism, homophobia (etc.) the greatest privilege of belonging to the dominant group is turning a blind eye.

  22. I’m sorry, I don’t see the Mayer article as an effective counterpoint to the one I cited. Here’s Mayer:

    No, security at U.S. ports is controlled by U.S. federal agencies led by the Coast Guard and the U.S. Customs and Border Control Agency, which are part of the Homeland Security department. Local jurisdictions also provide police and security personnel.

    Complaints about security at ports should be directed to the federal government.

    The guy who wrote the article I cited is the former inspector general of DHS. Do you think he might have some familiarity with how the ports actually operate?

    Again, this whole deal stinks to high heaven. It’s been rushed through by a panel that includes a senior Administration official who stands to personally benefit from the deal, nobody can explain why the mandatory 45-day investigation was not conducted, and now we find out that the Administration had a secret deal to waive very normal commercial contract terms, effectively excusing the company from accountability for their actions on US soil.

    There’s absolutely no reason that opposition to this kind of deal needs to be dismissed as Arab-bashing, or xenophobia, or New Yorkers wanting to paint every Middle Easterner as a terrorist (and that’s a good one, considering how many Middle Easterners live in my building — I’d be shitting my pants constantly if I were that paranoid). What the hell kind of objection could there possibly be to stopping the deal where it is and requiring it to go through the normal investigations and ensuring that the contract contains conditions that are routinely required from other foreign commercial interests?

  23. …they are responsible for hiring security officers, guarding the cargo and overseeing its unloading…

    This is referring to rent-a-cops guarding the port itself. Any actual terrorist intercept would be target specific based on intelligence. The volume of daily shipping precludes any other method.

  24. I see 2 issues: Yet another look at crooked bush admin workings, and a and an asumption – based on a xenophobic fear – that any arab country/corp/business will leverage whatever access or knowledge they would gain to stage a terrorist attack.

  25. that any arab country/corp/business

    Wrong, and offensive, again. The allegation is that a government with ties to the Taliban and Osama bin Laden will leverage whatever access or knowledge it has. Your attempts to make this about race are not only incorrect but wholly unfounded..

  26. #

    # Magis Says:
    February 23rd, 2006 at 10:41 am

    Jesus!

    You souldn’t farm out our security to any private company, foreign or otherwise. I suppose the freaking Coast Guard is up for sale.

    What because the government does such a good job? In fact 9/11 prove that government can’t be trusted with security. They disarmed the pilots and set the standard policy for hijackings, cooperate. Without these moves 9/11 wouldn’t have happened. The standard excuse for this is that nobody expected hijackers to crash planes into buildings. Actually Algerian terrorists tried it in ’94 so anyone who was paying attention expected it to happen.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_8969
    Putting airline security in the hands of the government resulted in jail time for those who point out that it’s still possible to get knives aboard planes, rather than any actual wrongdoers.
    The “security” objection for this deal is a joke, there is no security at US ports and the government would be lousing it up if there was. The real reason for the screaming is that politicians won’t be able to do their standard corrupt deals with unions and management if the owner’s interest is in running the port well.

  27. I see 2 issues: Yet another look at crooked bush admin workings, and a and an asumption – based on a xenophobic fear – that any arab country/corp/business will leverage whatever access or knowledge they would gain to stage a terrorist attack.

    Those are the issues you see. But where are the examples to back them up?

    If you’re going to charge that there is racism or xenophobia involved, you’re going to have to do bettter than this.

  28. What because the government does such a good job? In fact 9/11 prove that government can’t be trusted with security. They disarmed the pilots and set the standard policy for hijackings, cooperate. Without these moves 9/11 wouldn’t have happened. The standard excuse for this is that nobody expected hijackers to crash planes into buildings. Actually Algerian terrorists tried it in ‘94 so anyone who was paying attention expected it to happen.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_8969
    Putting airline security in the hands of the government resulted in jail time for those who point out that it’s still possible to get knives aboard planes, rather than any actual wrongdoers.
    The “security” objection for this deal is a joke, there is no security at US ports and the government would be lousing it up if there was. The real reason for the screaming is that politicians won’t be able to do their standard corrupt deals with unions and management if the owner’s interest is in running the port well.

    Is this a good reason for the government’s abrogation of the responsibility? And how could an administration so horrible at managing security itself be trusted with selecting a responsible proxy?

  29. Also, airport security on 9/11 was performed by private companies engaged by the airlines, not by the government.

    I have a friend who has a lot of contacts in the Israeli intelligence community. It’s well-known that El Al has very, very tight security, though the security jobs are not very high-paying. The difference between El Al and American security, though, is that while a job as a security screener in the US is low-pay, low-status and dead-end, with El Al, it’s low-pay but higher in status and a platform for further jobs in the intelligence community. So it attracts a lot of young people fresh out of the military who want to see the world and also want to go somewhere in the security field.

Comments are currently closed.