Homeland Security Objected to Ports Deal

[Nickdfresh]

Homeland Security Objected to Ports Deal
Saturday, February 25, 2006 1:20 PM EST
The Associated Press (http://www.adelphia.net/news/read.php?ps=1018&id=12607618&_LT=HOME_APN1DCCL1_UNEWS)
By TED BRIDIS

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Homeland Security Department objected at first to a United Arab Emirates company's taking over significant operations at six U.S. ports. It was the lone protest among members of the government committee that eventually approved the deal without dissent.

The department's early objections were settled later in the government's review of the $6.8 billion deal after Dubai-owned DP World agreed to a series of security restrictions.

The company indefinitely has postponed its takeover to give President Bush time to convince Congress that the deal does not pose any increased risks to the U.S. from terrorism.

Some lawmakers have pressed for a new and intensive review. Despite persistent criticism from Republicans and Democrats, the president has defended his administration's approval of the ports deal and threatened to veto any measures in Congress that would block it. Hearings are to continue this week.

A DP World executive said the company would agree to tougher security restrictions to win congressional support only if the same restrictions applied to all U.S. port operators. The company earlier had struck a more conciliatory stance, saying it would do whatever Bush asked to salvage the agreement.

"Security is everybody's business," senior vice president Michael Moore told The Associated Press. "We're going to have a very open mind to legitimate concerns. But anything we can do, any way to improve security, should apply to everybody equally."

The administration approved the ports deal on Jan. 17 after DP World agreed during secret negotiations to cooperate with law enforcement investigations in the future and make other concessions.

Some lawmakers have challenged the adequacy of a classified intelligence assessment crucial to assuring the administration that the deal was proper. The report was assembled during four weeks in November by analysts working for the director of national intelligence.

The report concluded that U.S. spy agencies were "unable to locate any derogatory information on the company," according to a person familiar with the document. This person spoke only on condition of anonymity because the report was classified.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and others have complained that the intelligence report focused only on information the agencies collected about DP World and did not examine reported links between UAE government officials and al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden before the Sept. 11 attacks.

The uproar over DP World has exposed how the government routinely approves deals involving national security without the input of senior administration officials or Congress.

President Bush, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and even Treasury Secretary John Snow, who oversees the government committee that approved the deal, all say they did not know about the purchase until after it was finalized. The work was done mostly by assistant secretaries.

Snow now says he may consider changes in the approval process so lawmakers are better alerted after such deals get the go-ahead.

Stewart Baker, a senior Homeland Security official, said he was the sole representative on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States who objected to the ports deal. Baker said he later changed his vote after DP World agreed to the security conditions. Other officials confirmed Baker's account.

"We were not prepared to sign off on the deal without the successful negotiation of the assurances," Baker told the AP.

Officials from the White House, CIA, departments of State, Treasury, Justices, and others looked for guidance from Homeland Security because it is responsible for seaports. "We had the most obvious stake in the process," Baker said.

Baker acknowledged that a government audit of security practices at the U.S. ports in the takeover has not been completed as part of the deal. "We had the authority to do an audit earlier," Baker said.

The audit will help evaluate DP World's security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials at its seaport operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

The administration privately disclosed the status of the security audit to senators during meetings about improving reviews of future business deals involving foreign buyers. Officials did not suggest the audit's earlier completion would have affected the deal's approval.

New Jersey's Democratic governor, who is suing to block the deal, said in his party's weekly radio address on Saturday that the administration failed to properly investigate the UAE's record on terrorism.

"We were told that the president didn't know about the sale until after it was approved. For many Americans, regardless of party, this lack of disciplined review is unacceptable," Jon Corzine said.

Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, said there was no going back on the deal.

[Phil theStalker]

I object t2o HOMELAND SUKURITY!


:spank:

[Hardrock69]

I ahbgect too dfe,m ,muffukkers t2w0....

[Nickdfresh]

Uhuhuhuhuhuh.

[Nickdfresh]

Paper: Coast Guard Has Port Co. Intel Gaps
Monday, February 27, 2006 6:21 PM EST
The Associated Press
By LIZ SIDOTI

WASHINGTON (AP) — Citing broad gaps in U.S. intelligence, the Coast Guard cautioned the Bush administration weeks ago that it could not determine whether a United Arab Emirates-based company seeking a stake in some U.S. port operations might support terrorist operations.

The disclosure came during a hearing Monday on Dubai-owned DP World's plans to take over significant operations at six leading U.S. ports.

The Bush administration said the Coast Guard's concerns were raised during its review of the deal, which it approved Jan. 17, and that all those questions were resolved.

The port operations are now handled by London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

"There are many intelligence gaps, concerning the potential for DPW or P&O assets to support terrorist operations, that precludes an overall threat assessment" of the potential merger, the unclassified Coast Guard intelligence assessment said.

"The breadth of the intelligence gaps also infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities," the assessment said.

The Coast Guard said the concerns reflected in the document ultimately were addressed. In a statement, the Coast Guard said other U.S. intelligence agencies were able to provide answers to the questions it raised.

"The Coast Guard, the intelligence community and the entire CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States) panel believed this transaction received the proper review, and national security concerns were, in fact, addressed," the Coast Guard said.

That multi-agency government panel reviews foreign purchases of vital U.S. assets.

The report raised questions about the security of the companies' operations, the backgrounds of people working for the companies, and whether other foreign countries influenced operations that affect security.

Sen. Susan Collins, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, released an unclassified version of the document at a briefing Monday. The Bush administration agreed Sunday to DP World's request for a second review of the potential security risks related to the deal.

Congressional leaders who brokered the arrangement for a second review hoped it would diffuse a bipartisan political uproar over port security and scuttle any push for legislation this week that would force such an investigation and could embarrass President Bush.

Senators introduced several bills Monday anyway, even though Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., told reporters in Detroit, "I don't think it's necessary to legislate."

Criticism persisted from both Republicans and Democrats.

"This report suggests there were significant and troubling intelligence gaps," said Collins, R-Maine. "That language is very troubling to me."

Appearing before the Collins committee, administration officials defended their decision not to trigger a 45-day review of national security implications of the business transaction following their initial review.

"In this case, the concerns that you're citing were addressed and resolved," Clay Lowery, the Treasury Department's assistant secretary for international affairs, told Collins. "There were no national security concerns that were not addressed."

The Coast Guard indicated to The Associated Press that it did not have serious reservations about the ports deal on Feb. 10, when the news organization first inquired about potential security concerns.

"Any time there's a new operator in a port our concern would be that that operator has complied with the (International Ship and Port Facility Security) ISPS code overseas and we just want to take a look at their track record," Cmdr. Jeff Carter, Coast Guard spokesman, said at the time. "And then we would look forward to working with them in the future ensuring they complied with all applicable regulations and international agreements," he added.

Stewart Baker, an assistant secretary for the Homeland Security Department, told lawmakers that the report was an internal Coast Guard document that the interagency panel that reviews foreign investment deals did not see. However, Baker said, he was aware of the Coast Guard concerns.

"I think it's a little unfair to judge this report by one paragraph that happens not to be classified," Baker said. "This paragraph is not really representative of the entire report."

"I think the paragraph speaks for itself," Collins responded before adjourning the public hearing for a closed session to explore the issue further.

Also Monday, a bipartisan group of senators introduced a bill that would delay the deal and give Congress an opportunity to block the takeover. The group did not plan to push for a vote yet.

"We're in a position now of watchful waiting," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. "If we feel the need, we will get a vote."

Other Democrats introduced legislation to ban companies owned by foreign governments from controlling operations at U.S. ports. At the White House, governors from across the country met privately with Bush, and several participants said the ports issue was brought up.

The Justice Department said the Bush administration's decision to investigate potential security risks in the DP World deal renders irrelevant the state of New Jersey's federal lawsuit aimed at blocking the company from assuming operations at the Port Newark container terminal.

———

Associated Press Writers Ted Bridis, Mark Sherman and Donna de la Cruz contributed to this report.

[Hardrock69]

Lawmaker: Port deal never probed for terror ties Profile Pm Email Search Buddy IP

Wednesday, March 1, 2006; Posted: 11:01 p.m. EST (04:01 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A review of a United Arab Emirates-owned company's plan to take over a portion of operations at key U.S. ports never looked into whether the company had ties to al Qaeda or other terrorists, a key Republican lawmaker told CNN on Wednesday.

Rep. Peter King of New York, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said officials from the Homeland Security and Treasury departments told him weeks ago that their 30-day review of the deal did not look into the question of links between DP World and al Qaeda.

King said the officials told him after he asked about investigation into possible terrorist ties: "Congressman, you don't understand, we don't conduct a thorough investigation. We just ask the intel director if there is anything on file, and he said no."

"There was no real investigation conducted during the 30-day period," King, who has been a vocal critic of the deal, told CNN. "I can't emphasize this enough,"

King's comments appear to contradict testimony by administration officials before Congress this week that a through review of any terrorism ties had occurred during the initial review of the deal.

After King and other lawmakers raised concerns about the deal, the company agreed to a 45-day review by the investigation. King said the administration should use the time to investigate the firm rather than trying to convince lawmakers that the deal should be approved.

"When I hear the administration saying they want to educate the Congress and the American public, they should be educating themselves," King said. "They should do the investigation they should have done after the 30 days."

A wave of concern has swept Capitol Hill over news of the deal to allow Dubai-based DP World to assume management of some cargo terminals at six U.S. ports on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. (Interactive: Who is minding the ports)

Critics note that two of the suicide hijackers involved in the attacks of September 11, 2001, came from the United Arab Emirates and that money for the plot was funneled through banks in Dubai, the banking hub of the Persian Gulf.

Supporters note that the UAE is an ally and home to major U.S. military bases, and that port security would be handled by the Coast Guard and other law enforcement agencies after the merger, just as it is now.

The $6.8 billion merger is set to close Thursday in Britain, home of current port operator P&O, but DP World agreed not to assume control of P&O's port operations until a 45-day security review takes place.
Port security defended

Also Wednesday, the U.S. Coast Guard's vice commandant defended the state of U.S. port security after facing tough questioning from lawmakers on Capitol Hill, but acknowledged that more work remains to be done.

"I don't think there's any question that our ports are far more secure now than they were prior to 9/11," Vice Adm. Terry M. Cross told a congressional subcommittee.

His testimony came a day after Department of Homeland Security deputy secretary Michael P. Jackson told a Senate committee he was unaware of a Coast Guard memo that warned of "intelligence gaps" in its review of a proposed merger that would put a company owned by and based in the United Arab Emirates in charge of several U.S. cargo terminals.

The Coast Guard, which is part of Homeland Security, said the document has been taken out of context since its disclosure.

The document's existence was revealed Monday by Sen. Susan Collins, chairwoman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. (Read the Coast Guard memoexternal link)
Chertoff promises changes

Collins, a Maine Republican, asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff on Wednesday what measures he would take to improve communication within his department after the Coast Guard memo went unnoticed.

Chertoff said his department was taking measures to "flatten the organization" in an effort to streamline communication between department heads.

Chertoff addressed the committee Wednesday in a wide-ranging hearing on his department's proposed budget.

In his testimony, Cross expressed confidence in domestic port security, noting that ships now must give 96 hours' notice before entering a U.S. port, up from 24 hours before September 11. Cross said the additional time allows port security officers to vet a ship's crew, passenger list, cargo manifest and vessel history before it arrives.

But Democratic Rep. Corrine Brown of Florida faulted the Bush administration for not doing enough. She said $4.4 billion has been spent on aviation security, "but only $36 million in all surface transportation."

Also Wednesday, a federal judge refused a request by the state of New Jersey to investigate the ports deal, according to The Associated Press. The judge also refused to order the release of the documents relating to the deal, saying they were confidential and that the state failed "to show an immediate need for those documents," the AP said.

CNN's Ed Henry contributed to this report.


LINKY (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/01/port.security/index.html)

[Hardrock69]

U.S. Reviewing 2nd Dubai Firm Israeli Deal Also Faces Security Check

By Jonathan Weisman and Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, March 2, 2006; Page A01

The Bush administration, stung by the public outcry over the Dubai port deal, has launched a national security investigation of another Dubai-owned company set to take over plants in Georgia and Connecticut that make precision components used in engines for military aircraft and tanks.

The administration notified congressional committees this week that its secretive Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) is investigating the security implications of Dubai International Capital's $1.2 billion acquisition of London-based Doncasters Group Ltd., which has subsidiaries in the United States. It is also investigating an Israeli company's plans to buy the Maryland software security firm Sourcefire, which does business with Defense Department agencies.


Administration officials are privately briefing leaders of half a dozen House and Senate committees this week about the two planned transactions, concerned that both deals could stir controversy in a political climate that remains supercharged over the Dubai port deal.

Republican and Democratic lawmakers angrily protested after learning late last month that the administration had approved a $6.8 billion deal to allow a maritime company based in the United Arab Emirates to take over significant operations at six U.S. ports without a thorough investigation and without consulting members of Congress. Last weekend, the Dubai maritime company agreed to a 45-day investigation to stem the protest and allay concerns of a possible breach of U.S. port security.

In the past, the foreign investment committee rarely told Congress of such inquiries. Wary of another misstep, administration officials decided to inform lawmakers of the two other pending transactions with national security implications for the United States.

There have been suggestions in the trade press that the publicly traded Israeli firm, Check Point Software Technologies, has been subjected to more scrutiny than Dubai Ports World, the state-owned Arab company that was initially cleared to take over operations at the six major U.S. ports with no security investigation. That inquiry was initiated only after an outcry about turning over port security to a country that has been cited for ties to terrorism. Sources familiar with the Israeli investigation said cybersecurity officials at the departments of Defense, Justice and Homeland Security all raised serious concerns about the purchase before the port controversy erupted.

Dubai International Capital's acquisition of Doncasters could present some of the same political problems created by Dubai Ports World's purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. Once again, a state-controlled Dubai company with deep pockets is purchasing a British firm with U.S. holdings. Doncasters has operations in nine U.S. locations and manufactures precision parts for defense contractors such as Boeing, Honeywell, Pratt & Whitney and General Electric.

A spokesman for Doncasters' corporate office in Connecticut said the company had no comment on the security investigation.

Although many foreign companies manufacture parts used in U.S. military equipment, in this instance CFIUS members decided to look more carefully at the Doncasters transaction. The CFIUS met last week and tentatively decided to subject that proposal to a 45-day investigation, and it finalized that decision in a conference call late Monday. The decision came on the final day of the regular 30-day review period. Aides on the Senate banking committee said the panel was notified late Monday that the CFIUS had initiated both national security inquiries.

"The CFIUS process is charged with determining if there are national security concerns in any transaction, and it takes that role very seriously," said Tony Fratto, spokesman for the Treasury Department, which leads the interagency committee. "It looks at each transaction on a case-by-case basis, and if security concerns are raised by any member of the committee at the end of an initial 30-day review, the case goes into investigation."

The 45-day investigation of the Israeli deal began in early February, several weeks before the controversy erupted over the Dubai port deal, administration officials said. The investigation of the Dubai-Doncasters deal began this week, at the height of the political turmoil over the port issue.

Yet Fratto said that neither of the new investigations were started "because of public reaction to some other transaction."


LINKY (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/01/AR2006030102192.html)

[Hardrock69]

Ok Ford you can delete that other thread.

No need to upset those less intelligent than yourself.
:D

[Roy Munson]

Wow. It's so mother-fucking exciting to read 5,436 differsent articles within one thread!!

It's funny to try and comment on each one and see how fucked-up and wacky responses get!!!

BRB..

Going to find another port article....

[Hardrock69]

Hey lookit!!!

**Pokes Roy Munson wif a stick**

Do you guys think it will get pissed off??

Hey Roy Munson, YOUR MOMMA!!!!

Fucking homo...
:rolleyes:

[Roy Munson]

Originally posted by Hardrock69
Hey lookit!!!

**Pokes Roy Munson wif a stick**

Do you guys think it will get pissed off??

Hey Roy Munson, YOUR MOMMA!!!!

Fucking homo...
:rolleyes:


Looks like Hardhomo69 is obsessing over me again. I think the last time I heard "your momma" was in junior high from a retarded kid.

[Hardrock69]

It was yesterday in your Special Ed class, eh?

Yeah, you always did come off as an immature brat with a low IQ...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Roy Munson
Looks like Hardhomo69 is obsessing over me again. I think the last time I heard "your momma" was in junior high from a retarded kid.

As opposed to your obsessing over FORD, and as too whether I'm gay or not...

Are you 'Brokebacking' me ROY?

[Roy Munson]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
As opposed to your obsessing over FORD, and as too whether I'm gay or not...

Are you 'Brokebacking' me ROY?


Shutup, faggot.

[Roy Munson]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
As opposed to your obsessing over FORD, and as too whether I'm gay or not...

Are you 'Brokebacking' me ROY?


And work on your fucking grammar, too. You sound stupid.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Roy Munson
And work on your fucking grammar, too. You sound stupid.

Yeah, whatever Boy Munch'in.

I didn't get a good education here in "Baffalo" you fucking Log Cabiner...

Stop posting here, you ARE stupid.

[Warham]

DUBAI DUETS

Late Friday, Department of Justice lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel were attempting to determine if former President Bill Clinton had registered as an "Agent of a Foreign Principal."

Federal statute requires that anyone -- even a former President -- doing political or public affairs work on behalf of a foreign country, agency or official must register with the Department, and essentially update his status every six months. It was not clear the Clinton had done so.

If his status is less clear, here is what we do know: If Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton did not know about her husband's standing with the United Arab Emirates and with Dubai World Ports, members of her Senate staff most assuredly did.

"There were enough people in the Clintons' orbit who were potentially going to be part of the deal," says an employee of a firm that does work for both Clintons. "We were pursuing work on the ports deal, and we cleared our participation with Clinton's office. We didn't want there to be a conflict."

In fact, at least two senior outside advisers to Senator Clinton were attempting to get business out of the Port Deal, and President Clinton was the go-between. Associates with the Glover Park Group, which houses just about the entire shadow staff for Hillary's run-up to a Democratic presidential bid, were attempting to get a slice of the DPW deal before the deal was made public about three weeks ago. According to current and former President Clinton staff, Hillary Clinton's Senate office was aware that Glover Park was in the running to do work on the DPW deal.

"She was also very much aware of President Clinton's financial arrangements with the UAE," says a former Bill Clinton staffer. "We're talking about more than a million dollars, some of paid out soon out after they left the White House. That income helped the Clintons buy the properties that allow them to live both in New York and Washington, D.C. This was not an insignificant financial arrangement."

What is not clear is whether or not the junior Senator from New York was aware that Clinton was acting as an agent of a foreign principal, which Clinton clearly was. According to sources with knowledge of the deal, President Clinton was advising members of the DPW buyout team in the UAE, London, and Washington before the deal hit the headlines. He encouraged them to hire a number of people working in consulting firms based in Washington with whom he had both personal and financial ties: The Cohen Group, the Albright Group, and the Glover Park Group. Other sources claim that longtime Clinton confidante and golf partner Vernon Jordan's name was also suggested as potential helpful fixer in the capital.

Much of this activity and consultation took place before the DPW deal hit the front pages of newspapers in mid-February, and about ten days before the DPW deal was to close in Great Britain.