Why the Congress should declare Ports sale null and void ?

[kentuck]

First of all, nobody knew about it. Bush didn't know about it. The Homeland Security Chief, Chertoff, did not know about it. And Congress did not know about it. Since when do the British and the UAE decide they can make deals over the ports of our country without any knowledge or input from this country?? Do they think we have nothing to say about it? One wonders how many more deals are in the works?

But Congress should send a message to the British and the UAE. Stop this bullshit. Our country is not yours to sell at will and neither are our ports or the operations of our ports. Get it? Congress should declare the sale null and void immediately. There are more proper channels to go thru if the British and the Dubai governments wish to make a deal.

[Peter Frank]

1. Sorry, but my answer has to be...

...duh?

[RagingInMiami]

2. If you really believe that Bush didn't know about it

Then I have a port to sell you.

[kentuck]

4. Then, let him come out and tell the truth....

He said he did not know about it. If he wants to continue to lie, the Congress should assume their respectful role in our government.

[flordehinojos]

6. re: congress, bush and the ports sale.

(snip)Congress has grown up. It has taken an adult stance. It has realized that it has a voice in Government. Especially in this, All for Sale government. It has realized that Bush cannot silence them, control them, or buy them. Congress has found its conscience and it has decided to do that which is right for this country.

Senators and Representatives of all stripes in each party realize that they can, and must, say, NO, to Bush. That they must act as the good parent who disciplines its out of control child, and that if this United States is to survive this illicit (p)residency, it must do what Poppy Bush never did for Junior—It must go, “Mano-a-Mano” with the Bush boy. It must set limits to his tantrums, his threats, his fear planting, his power grab. They must stop his usurping of their power before it is too late. (snip)

It is also telling Bush, when you make claims that “our government” has reviewed the port issue..... We, the Legislative Branch of Government, have not reviewed anything. We have not been made a part of that process. We were ignored and discounted and you cannot do that! We are a part of, "our government", and you are not going to use us without our kowledge and consent.
(snip)

article at oped-news. link:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_teresa_s_060222_the_revolution_has_b.htm

[katmondoo]

3. I do find it hard to believe no one knew about this deal

Do we have some sort of secret government running the country, so secret that not even the Cheney secret government knows who is in charge.

[Inspector77]

17. Sadly the MSM is pretending this is credible

[Solly Mack]

5. It's a beautiful doublebind! Hats off to kentuck!

Excellent. Since no one in government knew about it -

How could it have possibly been reviewed by the government or government entities? And it should not be allowed on that basis alone.

And if they did know about it - then they're lying about not knowing now...

and if the government is lying about the deal - then it shouldn't be allowed because they lied to the people....because now we have "why did they lie?" and "what was their personal gain from lying?"

[nickinSTL]

7. rather than focus on the British-UAE deal...

why not focus on the fact that the security of our nation's ports has been outsourced?

Why is ANY foreign company in charge?

The protection of our nation's borders is the responsibility of the US government.

Homeland Security is in charge of airport security, why not sea port security?

[Adelante]

8. Council on Foreign Relations

Has a Q&A about the port deal. I don't know how it fits in with the whole story, but somebody in Congress should have known about it, according to this. I think the lack of transparency is hugely important. These deals need to be out in the open more and subject to better oversight, so the public can get some idea of what's happening before it happens. I don't know if this CIFUS bypassed Congress and that's why there was no objection in 30 days or what happened?

Was there any government oversight of the sale?

The Bush administration signed off on the February 13 sale of P&O to DP World only after unanimous approval by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CIFUS), a twelve-member, interagency body that evaluates the security implications of such transactions. Any dissenting objections within that committee would have triggered a 45-day review. Congress had thirty days to object to the sale once CIFUS approved the deal, but no objections were raised. Many lawmakers are now calling for an in-depth review, but their thirty days have expired. Speaking at CFR on January 19, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury and CIFUS Chairman Robert Kimmitt said his committee does "good job of assessing the risk" of this sort of foreign investment.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9918/#5


The Q&A has a lot of links in it.

[kentuck]

9. The very fact that Congress did not know is a breach of national security

This is serious business... (emphasis on the word "business")

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. The takeover was public knowledge

but I would question the timing that the Council on Foreign Relations gives for the "they had 30 days to object, but didn't", since it was only on Jan 26th that Dubai became the highest bidder for P&O (it had been a Singapore governemnt business before then), and Feb 13th when the shareholders accepted the Dubai bid.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4649360.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4652628.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4709782.stm

[kentuck]

12. It may have been in the public....

but I don't know if we can say that means there was "public knowledge"... nitpicking perhaps?

[Adelante]

15. Yes, that is confusing

Do we know the date of the end of the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CIFUS) process? I'll try to read more today. The lack of transparency in this deal is bugging me. Thanks.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. I don't know, but it does seem rather secretive

Brookly McLaughlin, a Treasury spokeswoman, said the agency is prohibited by law from commenting on any decisions or actions of the foreign investment committee.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11343270/from/RL.2/

[Adelante]

22. Schumer gets it about right here - your link, muriel_v

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., sent a letter Monday to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff asking that he review the arrangement — particularly to find out if the foreign investment committee considered national security when approving the takeover.

"Foreign control of our ports, which are vital to homeland security, is a risky proposition; riskier yet is that we are turning it over to a country that has been linked to terrorism previously. This deal seems to have been unnecessarily fast-tracked. The American people are entitled to greater and more open scrutiny," he said.

Specifically, Schumer raised concerns that the new company will have broad security responsibilities at each of the ports it operates, controlling all cargo not set aside for DHS screening — which could be as much as 95 percent of cargo at each port — managing access to secure areas and screening personnel.

"Even if this company is perfectly suited to run our ports, what checks have been put in place to ensure that it is not infiltrated?" Schumer asked. "A public investigation to look at the security aspects of this deal that gives this company a clean bill of health is critical before we move forward."

It's really the most important two aspects for me:

1-Port security

2-Transparency

Once these two issues are resolved, I have less of a problem with this deal, short term. Long term, we had better start building up our own industries again so we don't have to rely so much on foreign providers.

[TahitiNut]

19. Speaking of "Singapore governemnt business" ...

... doesn't anyone find it bizarrely Orwellian that APL (American President Lines) is a "Singapore governemnt business"?? I do. (Singapore is a full-fledged fascist state.) APL has several Port Operations contracts in the U.S.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. Merged with Neptune Orient in 1997

http://www.apl.com/history/timeline/1970b.htm

who are majority owned by the Singapore government. Keeping brand names is often done - I expect Dubai Ports will continue to use the P&O brand name, since it's highly recognised in the UK.

[Adelante]

13. No kidding

Congress should have known. What kept them from knowing? Do you know how it went down? It's not clear to me. Was Congress supposed to be informed and were not informed? Or was Congress informed and no action taken?

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. You may be looking for the "Byrd Amendment"

Mentioned once or twice on DU, but not as a major news item. The House Judiciary Committee (or several members, I'm not sure), led by John Conyers, thinks this is a problem for Bush, and I can see their point:

At a briefing yesterday to staff of the House Armed Services, Intelligence, Homeland Security and Judiciary Committees, representatives from the Administration detailed the process they undergo for reviewing proposed transactions involving foreign investors. In that briefing, representatives from the Departments of Treasury, Homeland Security, Defense, State and others explained that after a 30-day review by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS), an inter-agency committee chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury, the members of that Committee exercise their judgment as to whether a subsequent 45-day review and preparation of a report is needed. As with almost all other cases involving foreign investment, in the case of the DPW transaction, the Bush Administration elected to forego such a review.

We have serious concerns about the described process because, as explained by the Administration, the review occurs only if the CFIUS decides in its discretion to do so. This does not appear to be a proper interpretation of the law. Under 50 U.S.C. App. § 2170(b), the CFIUS must conduct the 45-day investigation "in any instance in which an entity controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government seeks to engage in any merger, acquisition, or takeover which could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the United States that could affect the national security of the United States." This amendment, known as the "Byrd Amendment" and enacted in 1993, was intended to mandate that a review occurs if the transaction in any way "could" affect our national security. Prior to the Byrd Amendment, the determination to engage in this 45-day review period was discretionary to the Administration.

If any set of facts would implicate the mandatory language of the amended statute, it would appear to be covered by the case of Dubai Ports World - the company is "controlled" by a foreign government, and the operation of United States ports clearly "could affect the national security of the United States." As a matter of fact, the proposed acquirer of these interests, DPW, is 100% owned by the United Arab Emirates of Dubai. Thus, operation of our ports - already a troubling gap in our homeland security - is being turned over not simply to a foreign company, but to a foreign government. Indeed at yesterday's briefing, your representatives indicated that, at least as an initial matter, the Department of Homeland Security expressed such security concerns. If the Administration truly believed that "this deal wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America," as the President stated today, you would work to ensure that transactions of this nature would be subject to the full 45-day review as the law appears to require.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0223-23.htm

[Adelante]

18. That's very helpful

Thank you for posting it.

[iconoclastNYC]

14. Nationalize them.

We can't trust our national security to private companies -- they'll cut corners to increase profit and if WMD gets thru -- "Nobody could have anticipated terrorists would use our ports to import WMDs."

NATIONALIZE THE PORTS.

[Junkdrawer]

16. Yeah, right...No one knew about the deal....

I ran outta gas. I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from outta town. Someone stole my car.

There was an earthquake, a terrible flood, locusts.

It wasn't my fault, I swear to God!