Comments on: Port Problems http://donklephant.com/2006/02/20/port-problems/ Big Teeth. Huge Ass. Surprisingly Reasonable. Sat, 10 Jan 2009 03:59:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Paul http://donklephant.com/2006/02/20/port-problems/comment-page-1/#comment-6903 Paul Wed, 22 Feb 2006 12:13:32 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2006/02/20/port-problems/#comment-6903 I think Tom Ridge said it best "we need more transparency" here. The company is owned by the government of UAE. The same country that recognized the Taliban as a legitimate government and helped Khan develop the nuclear blackmarket. Even if this is deemed a safe transaction, we still need to have stronger port security. Only 5% of imported cargo is inspected. The technology is out there but there it's not politically sexy enough to garner attention. I think Tom Ridge said it best “we need more transparency” here. The company is owned by the government of UAE. The same country that recognized the Taliban as a legitimate government and helped Khan develop the nuclear blackmarket. Even if this is deemed a safe transaction, we still need to have stronger port security. Only 5% of imported cargo is inspected. The technology is out there but there it’s not politically sexy enough to garner attention.

]]> By: Bob Aman http://donklephant.com/2006/02/20/port-problems/comment-page-1/#comment-6874 Bob Aman Wed, 22 Feb 2006 06:51:54 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2006/02/20/port-problems/#comment-6874 If a nuclear weapon were to be smuggled into the country, realistically, I can't think of any reason the port system would be trusted by terrorists <em>unless they had someone on the inside.</em> To me, that's a sufficiently compelling reason to block the sale. We would never outsource our missle manufacturing to Cuba, so why is something as critical to national security as the borders themselves any different? This isn't an issue of free trade or property rights or anything of the sort. It's an issue of survival in the face of one of the greatest threats the United States may ever face. It's important that we take at least some precautions. If a nuclear weapon were to be smuggled into the country, realistically, I can’t think of any reason the port system would be trusted by terrorists unless they had someone on the inside. To me, that’s a sufficiently compelling reason to block the sale.

We would never outsource our missle manufacturing to Cuba, so why is something as critical to national security as the borders themselves any different?

This isn’t an issue of free trade or property rights or anything of the sort. It’s an issue of survival in the face of one of the greatest threats the United States may ever face. It’s important that we take at least some precautions.

]]> By: David Markland http://donklephant.com/2006/02/20/port-problems/comment-page-1/#comment-6873 David Markland Wed, 22 Feb 2006 05:20:09 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2006/02/20/port-problems/#comment-6873 I agree with LJ on this. I'd prefer matters of national security were always handled internally, but we can't keep a Muslim company from running just for being Muslim. However, I find the Bush Admin's defense of the deal disingenuous... if they didn't have ties to the company at hand I'm certain they'd be singing another tune. Regardless, I welcome Bush's first real act that could counter the rising bigotry against Muslims in this country. I agree with LJ on this. I’d prefer matters of national security were always handled internally, but we can’t keep a Muslim company from running just for being Muslim.

However, I find the Bush Admin’s defense of the deal disingenuous… if they didn’t have ties to the company at hand I’m certain they’d be singing another tune.

Regardless, I welcome Bush’s first real act that could counter the rising bigotry against Muslims in this country.

]]> By: Tom http://donklephant.com/2006/02/20/port-problems/comment-page-1/#comment-6857 Tom Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:15:52 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2006/02/20/port-problems/#comment-6857 Unless you think that the businesspeople at the top eschalon of this company are looking to do us harm, I don't see what it matters either way. I don't see how an American company brings any more security. Either way, they're in it for the money, and they're subject to the same laws on how things need to be screened. The people doing the grunt work are going to be the same people - Americans. This strikes me more as protectionism, xenophobia, and politics, and I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary. Unless you think that the businesspeople at the top eschalon of this company are looking to do us harm, I don’t see what it matters either way. I don’t see how an American company brings any more security. Either way, they’re in it for the money, and they’re subject to the same laws on how things need to be screened. The people doing the grunt work are going to be the same people - Americans. This strikes me more as protectionism, xenophobia, and politics, and I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary.

]]> By: Justin Gardner http://donklephant.com/2006/02/20/port-problems/comment-page-1/#comment-6840 Justin Gardner Tue, 21 Feb 2006 07:13:09 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2006/02/20/port-problems/#comment-6840 <blockquote>That’s what I don’t get. The ports are being run by a foreign company now. What you object to is a Muslim company controling the ports. If a German company wanted to purchase P&O, I doubt anyone would be denoucing it, even though most of the 9/11 hijackers planned for it in Hamburg.</blockquote> Well, Germany doesn't knowingly harbor terrorists. The UAE has. In fact, some of the terrorists made their way into the US through the UAE. So yes, there are MASSIVE differences and playing the relativism game here doesn't fit. Moreover, I want the US to control our own ports. Are we to believe that there are no companies in the US that are up for the job?

That’s what I don’t get. The ports are being run by a foreign company now. What you object to is a Muslim company controling the ports. If a German company wanted to purchase P&O, I doubt anyone would be denoucing it, even though most of the 9/11 hijackers planned for it in Hamburg.

Well, Germany doesn’t knowingly harbor terrorists. The UAE has. In fact, some of the terrorists made their way into the US through the UAE. So yes, there are MASSIVE differences and playing the relativism game here doesn’t fit.

Moreover, I want the US to control our own ports. Are we to believe that there are no companies in the US that are up for the job?

]]> By: LJ http://donklephant.com/2006/02/20/port-problems/comment-page-1/#comment-6838 LJ Tue, 21 Feb 2006 06:04:58 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2006/02/20/port-problems/#comment-6838 <i>London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.</i> That's what I don't get. The ports are being run by a foreign company now. What you object to is a Muslim company controling the ports. If a German company wanted to purchase P&O, I doubt anyone would be denoucing it, even though most of the 9/11 hijackers planned for it in Hamburg. London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

That’s what I don’t get. The ports are being run by a foreign company now. What you object to is a Muslim company controling the ports. If a German company wanted to purchase P&O, I doubt anyone would be denoucing it, even though most of the 9/11 hijackers planned for it in Hamburg.

]]>