Centerfield

Not a surprise... There job isn't to provide input but to take others decision and make sure they are implemented. Military organizations frequently opt out of an opinion on controversial issues. Notice they didn't say that it would support terrorist organizations either.

I don't start from the idea that DP is innocent until proved guilty

What do you start with then? Where is the evidence that other countries have been endangerd by the UAE running their ports? Where is the evidence that this is a threat to security? The Coast Guard certainly did not provide it.

that free trade is sacred

It isn't sacred, but it works. It has worked in China. It has worked in Japan. It worked in Western Europe. Seems to me that the best way to accustom a region with peace and freedom is to introduce them to the very things that are the fabric of nations built on both. IMO, a major part of that fabric is free markets, open trade of goods and services, etc. etc.

that we have a moral duty to allow DP to run our ports as long as they pay cash

I don't know if this has been presented as a moral issue, but I will say that I think it is a diplomatic mistake to cut off deals with other countries for no other reason but hysteria based upon political ambition. And if our policy is that the ports are run by those who win the contract based on things like quality and cost, and then we refuse one country because we don't happen to like the fact that their population looks like those who flew airplanes into our buildings, than why would anyone ever again deal with the United States? Furthermore, why should they?

why do we need this? Why is it good for us?

Why not? As President Carter said, Dubai does this better than anyone else. Our ports are not that well managed, IMO. Why not allow someone who is good at it to do the job if they bid the right price?

Furthermore, there are sound diplomatic reasons for giving contracts to Middle Eastern companies, especially if you are trying to build a coalition of the willing, if you will.

Is the good (keeping foreign investors confidence up so they'll finance our deficit) so important that we take even a small risk on who runs our ports?

That is a diversion from the issue, but I agree that it is one reason. I think there are others, however.

By that logic we would close down our ports, period, because there is a small risk no matter who runs them. By that logic we would have to break deals with other nations who currently have contracts to run our ports. That simply is just a stupid way of doing business, allowing fear to hold us back. I simply don't think we should reduce productivity based on an organizations past activities before September 11th. We asked them to be for us or against, Dubai has clearly been the latter since. What does it say about our credibility if we don't provide Middle Eastern countries with an incentive to be with us in the future? Should we stop doing business with Russia, Japan, and Germany because of their past activities? Where are you willing to draw the line?

Mathew again you are creating a straw man. No one is arguing we should stop doing business altogether with the UAE, we are talking specifically whether they should be charged with running our ports.

Rick's the one straw-manning. Who has said that Dubai is innocent until proven guilty? No one. How about if we simply investigate the details instead of assuming that they are guilty?

And it doesn't surprise me that the coast guard is "unable to determine whether Dubai might support terrorist operations." Since when is that the coast guard's job? What's so surprising that the coast guard is expressing an inability to make a determination that's pretty far afield from their area of expertise? The last time I checked, Dubai was thousands of miles away from where our coast guard's ships and staff operate. What am I missing here?

Surprise disclosure? Surprise to who, exactly?

Great diplomatic message, Laura. Hey, Dubai, we'll do business with you, but our ports are off the table because we are afraid you will blow us up. The only evidence of that we have are your business dealings before 9/11. It doesn't matter that since that time you have been completely loyal. Please understand, hysteria is often responsible for controlling public policy in the United States, and you guys, you are simply the wrong color and from the wrong corner of the world.

Are you telling me that the same person who said we have a right to be suspicous of all arabs now is telling me that it is just the ports you are worried about? Excuse me if I am, well, suspicous.

I agree with Laura.

I sometimes have contractors who work on the house, paint, do masonry, etc. I figure they are probably okay, but I have not given them the key to my house. I don't trust them that much.

I'm willing to buy oil from the UAE, and sell them American products. But ports are like the key to my home. I don't trust them that much.

Do I trust the British? Yes, now. I doubt the Founding Fathers would have contracted port management to the British, though.

EIGHTY percent of the terminals in the Port of Los Angeles are run by foreign firms--including the People's Republic of China. Saudi Arabia operates berths in the ports of Baltimore, Newport News, Houston, New Orleans, Savannah, Wilmington, N.C., Port Newark, New Jersey, and Brooklyn, New York. In fact, three of the five cargo terminal in New York are operated by foreign firms. Two of the five in Seattle are operated by foreign firms.

Let's go it one more. Did you know that nearly fifty percent of the oil that comes through the Alaskan pipeline is property of British Petroleum?

We're not in conflict with the British or Chinese. I would be interested in learning more about the Saudi operations you mention. As I posted in a comment on an earlier post, the suicide bombers who attempted to blow up Saudi facilities last week were disaffected members of leading clans.

From the linked story, Rick.

In a statement, the Coast Guard said the concerns reflected in the excerpt ultimately were addressed and that other U.S. intelligence agencies answered the questions it raised.

So they had concerns, those concerns were addressed. You need to adjust the tense in your opening sentence.

I'd debate us not being conflict with the Chinese. But even if I granted that, since when have we been in conflict with Dubai? We're not. Never have been. They're the most westernized of all the Middle Eastern emirates, complete to churches and bars and hookers and theme parks.

National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia. Really dangerous. Musta slipped in under the radar, having only been around since 1979. Been running their own US port terminals since 1991.

We're not in conflict with the British or Chinese.

Wait, I am confused, are we in conflict with the government of Dubai? I don't think anyone is saying lets do port deals with those we are in conflict with. In fact, I would argue that if anything Dubai has been an ally since September the 11th.

Tully,

You score a point on the Saudi company, but I would still argue that if a home has been broken into only once, it doesn't mean it only has one vulnerability. It looks like Al Qaeda is holding their fire in the US until they have a plan that dazzles as much as 9/11

Matthew,

We are in conflict with a non-governmental organization that restricts recruitment to members of the Muslim faith. UAE citizens are eligible for membership. Most British and Chinese are not. I'm an engineer, and I believe in playing the percentages. If the liklihood that a Muslim supports al Qaeda is 5%, and the likelihood that a Protestant supports al Qaeda is near 0%, that is useful information.

Rick;
I have to admit I'm a bit surprised. This doesn't sound like moderate Democratic talk but more akin to a talk-radio conservative.

I believe in playing the percentages.

Rick, does such a policy extend to such things as crossing the street when a black person comes the other way, because black people are imprisoned at a greater rate and therefore, according to your belief in playing the percentages, represent a greater risk to your personal well-being?

I'm sure you'll find a clever way to explain why that's very different, perhaps by saying that black americans are not terrorists, or that in this particular case, we all know that would be racist, so it's not right.

If you really want to play the percentages, why not use statistical analysis to come up with your personal risk factor for terrorism? If you did, you'd find out that you're far more at risk from a car accident or cancer or some other fairly commonplace happenstance than you are from terrorism. But ordinary events just don't give you the visceral fear that "the building's coming down" does.

See I believe in understanding the percentages. But I don't believe in hiding my xenophobia behind them, or using them as a rational clothing for my visceral fear of certain things that may give me nightmares.

The real and true fair-minded percentages always deserve examination. They help you understand the world. But they are not the only imperative. For example, if you are a christian, perhaps the following applies:

"God did not give us a spirit of fear, but of power, of love, and of a sound mind." - 2 Timothy 1:7

Here's the thing: either you let the percentages rule you in such a way that any conceivable risk is too great. Or you use them in concert with the rest of your moral principles, and you decide that the so-far-demonstrable risk is not nearly great enough to make you compromise your moral principles...the ones that suggest that people deserve to be treated as individuals on the basis of the content of their character.

That's a principle I support. Now clearly the mileage of others, such as Rick and Laura, varies at least a little bit on this count. They're somewhat more afraid than I am, and they think me a willing dupe of evil forces that conspire to kill us. Well. Treating people as individuals based on the content of their character is a deeply important principle to me, and I have not seen enough actual demonstrated risk to make me compromise that principle and place all muslim organizations in the untrustworthy category.

But suppose for the sake of argument that we deified the "percentages" that Rick is relying on. Suppose we did place all muslims in a category where we constrained their rights to interact with America compared to say England or Canada. No ownership or management of security-sensitive operations. Much higher scrutiny for entry. No coming here to study educational topics that we viewed as knowledge too risky to impart top an untrustworthy muslim. If we did that, do we provide muslims with any exit strategy? Can they prove trustworthiness? If so, how? Or do we keep these restrictions in place until the genral public dedides that they guess muslims are ok after all?

Oh, and once we put muslims on this list, do we start developing criteria under which other nations might make our list? What about American citizens? Are they automatically exempt? Would they have to join al-quaeda, or would visiting a mosque and having muslim friends be reason enough to make the list? Can I read the koran? Can I say anthing nice about any muslims?

I feel that if those such as Rick and Laura are going to advocate such policies, then they must at the very least explain to us precisely how they would work. If they want to move the line, they should tell us where they are going to put it.

Rick sez:
> We are in conflict with a non-governmental organization that
> restricts recruitment to members of the Muslim faith. UAE citizens
> are eligible for membership. Most British and Chinese are not.

You're forgetting whatsisname from Marin who was captured in Afghanistan. And whattheirnames who went around shooting residents of Montgomery County, MD after 9/11.

> I'm an engineer, and I believe in playing the percentages. If the
> liklihood that a Muslim supports al Qaeda is 5%, and the likelihood
> that a Protestant supports al Qaeda is near 0%, that is useful
> information.

More like 0.005%. So, then, we should stay away from to New York because we might get mugged.

My feeling was that the biggest real chance of harm was of port-security-related information being easier for terrorists to get. After all, port-related jobs probably aren't too hard to get here in the US. But Tully's list suggests that even that will change at best little.

I heard on NPR this morning that Dubai is the largest port of call for the US Navy outside the United States. How does that figure into the level of trust we should have in the Dubai government?

I would still argue that if a home has been broken into only once, it doesn't mean it only has one vulnerability.

And I'd agree completely. We've got a LOT of vulnerabilities, including ports. But no one has shown any rationalized and quantified basis for increased risk from this deal. As I noted, the article you linked says that the Coast Guard has had their concerns met.

Examine the deal, sure. Keep a close eye on them, you bet! We should be keeping a close eye on everyone--the Chinese leap to mind there, given their recent history of industrial espionage and smuggling--including American companies. But bar them from even being players? Solely on the basis of the company owner's religion?

Yes, AQ is an Islamic terrorist organization. Do you urge we discriminate against all Muslims on that basis? Muslim-owned businesses? Foreign-based Muslim-owned businesses? Foreign-based government-owned businesses from majority Muslim nations? Maybe we better quit importing all that fish and rice and electronics from Indonesia and Malaysia. (90% Muslim.) Israel's almost 20% Muslim--do we exclude them from US investment? India's 15% Muslim--do we make Dell bring their customer service back home from Bangalor? (OK, there's other good reasons to do that...)

I'm not missing your point at all, I'm asking you to rationalize it and quantify it, something an engineer should appreciate. Without that it's just flat-out religious/pseudo-racial discrimination, no matter the justifications. Yes, AQ's are Muslims. And Crusaders were Roman Catholics, Nazis were mostly Protestants, and the rape-pillage-burn Japanese of WW2 were Shinto and Buddhist.

I heard on NPR this morning that Dubai is the largest port of call for the US Navy outside the United States.

It is for the moment, with our heavy presence in the Persian Gulf. The Navy used to stop in Yemen for fuel, before the Cole bombing. After that they started refueling in Dubai, because of the better port security. This cheered the sailors right up, as Dubai has many things simply not found or allowed in any other regional ME port. (See above, about bars and hookers and theme parks, even churches.)

Senator Clinton has been a strong advocate for increasing port security across the country. In particular, she has advocated a 100% inspection rate for all containers entering U.S. ports. You might recall this was an issue also raised by Senator Kerry in the presidential race.

I'm thinking a fine compromise out of all this political mess would be to increase the Coast Guard and Customs & Border Patrol budgets significantly to give them the tools they need to physically and electronically inspect far more containers than they do now. THAT would make us all much safer from the real threats at ports.

I think raising the public consciousness of the inadequacy of our own port security efforts is the silver lining of this whole embarrassing controversy. The real problem is that one does not need much inside information about port operations to get something into the country.

I have a question: Are there any Middle-Eastern companies that own U.S. airports? I just ask because if we were talking about LaGuardia, Hartsfield and OHare..would our thoughts still be the same?

9/11 was our(at least my) generation's JFK assasination. We will be able to tell our grandkids what we were doing the exact time those towers fell. The images of flames and people jumping from buildings have etched a place in our minds forever. Can we not see why so many people are against this deal?

All of the facts above are fair and rational. But I think in the turbulent times of today, people are looking for peace of mind. The public was not invited into the decisions of other foreign-owned port sales. If it were...we probably would have seen this argument long before now.

Of course it is not fair to judge an entire religion or country because of the acts of an extremely small percentage, that is a very harsh and unfortunate fact. But those images....those darn images of towers now gone. I can understand the fear. Someone above related this to black people in prison. I kind of think that comparison is a petty one. I mean, if you want to take it to that level...lets compare the 9/11 attacks to a vicious mauling of a child by a pit-bull. In these cases, a person's personal bias against someone or something is derived because of an actual horrifying incident that affected them personally, not some ignorant generalization. The trust factor takes a while to regain when one is the victim.

I understand the fear and the desire for the invaluable peace of mind.

Senator Clinton has been a strong advocate for increasing port security across the country. In particular, she has advocated a 100% inspection rate for all containers entering U.S. ports. You might recall this was an issue also raised by Senator Kerry in the presidential race.

Anyone else see the logistical problem with that? I'd love to ridicule the idea on the sheer logistics, but it's actually doable in an electronic fasshion. 80% of our container traffic goes through just four companies' port terminals (one of which is Dubai Ports). The largest, Hutchison-Whampoa Port Holdings, is a Hong Kong company (and operates most of the ports in Great Britain, BTW). The other two, BTW, are Singapore-based and Dutch-based.

For the last year, EVERY container passing into the terminals of the port of Hong Kong has been deep-scanned and tested for radiation, with the scan images available almost in real time to customs officials everywhere. Extending that pilot program to the major commercial operators and only permitting containers that have been through it would not be extortionately expensive.

Such a system would still have security holes (ALL systems do) but it could be done without bankrupting world shipping companies, or consumers. And it would make it enormously more difficult to use cargo containers for smuggled-nuke attacks on cargo destination ports.

BK: "If you really want to play the percentages, why not use statistical analysis to come up with your personal risk factor for terrorism? If you did, you'd find out that you're far more at risk from a car accident or cancer or some other fairly commonplace happenstance than you are from terrorism. But ordinary events just don't give you the visceral fear that "the building's coming down" does."

Then why are we fighting a war in Iraq?

Tim, for further guidance, please See "The real and true fair-minded percentages always deserve examination. They help you understand the world. But they are not the only imperative."

Tully, I meant to say they should all be inspected physically OR electronically. The pre-certification program is a good one, I think (and remember, folks, the UAE was the very first Middle Eastern country to sign up for that program). Inspect the container before it leaves home, seal it, and then just check the seal when it arrives here. It does pay to keep in mind the reality of how long inspection might take, even the fast roll-em-through-the-scanner inpsection. A web site I saw today for a roll-on, roll-off port terminal suggested a time of only about a minute to unload a container and slap it on an 18 wheeler.

tce, the reaction is certainly natural and understandable. If a young child is bit by a pit bull, he will likely fear not just all pit bulls, but all dogs, period, for a long time after the bite.

But that doesn't make it a good reaction or a healthy one. Who is hurt more by the child being afraid of all dogs and shunning them? Dogs can always find somewhere else to eat and get some attention. But the child will never learn the enjoyment of having a normal, nice, sweet pet dog to play with.

Racial/ethnic profiling is a bad thing because it is DANGEROUS to those who use it. Forget about decency and compassion and brotherhood and all that, and look for a moment at the practicalities. Not all Muslim men look that Muslim. Some look entirely caucasian. If our security depends on racial profiling, we WILL miss security threats from those who are clever enough to disguise themselves.

If our port security depends on the operator of the terminal, then we are in deep trouble regardless of who owns them. Sure, in general let's say the British are more trustworthy than the UAE. Does that mean it's impossible for an Al Qaeda-sypmathetic, caucasian appearing Musilm to get a job with the British company? I suspect Britain has something akin to our Civil Rights Act, which would prevent the company from refusing to hire Muslims and Middle Easterners as a general principle. Cancelling this deal might, just might make a few people in this country feel a little safer, but angering one of our best friends in the Middle East (with one of the most modern, open societies in the region) would in fact make us LESS safe.

I agree with Pat that until we actually give the Coast Guard and Customs the funds and tools necessary for them to really secure us then we are in danger and it matters little who does the logistics. I agree with Rick that this port deal just seems to have been rammed through with very little thought of trying to include Congress and the Governors involved in the process. I think the Bush administration brought the fuss on by being their usual smug and secretive selves. I read today in a Harper's Index that "the number of suicide bombings known to have been carried out by Iranians:0" If that is true, it's amazing. Zero? What about their culture would account for that? A different interpetation of Islam? Too smart to fall for the 77 virgins scam?

What Pat said about racial profiling. But it goes even deeper. Today we're watching for jihadis. Tomorrow it might be Colombian narco-terrorists. Next week, Quebecois seperatists, or Nigerian communists, or Taiwanse nationalists. If you gear your security philosophy to today's threats, it may be worthless against tomorrow's. The steps taken after the OKC bombing did nothing to stop 9/11.

Regarding playing the percentages, it could also apply to US citizens. However, the 14th Amendment requires us to blind ourselves in certain respects, and provide equal protection under law to all Americans, even if we know rationally that some are more likely to offend than others.

So I would say that for US citizens who happen to be Muslim, we are legally required to blind ourselves to the fact that it makes them a lot more likely to provide material support to Al Qaeda than if they were Christian or Hindu.

I don't think the 14th Amendment applies to Muslim citizens of the UAE who are physically in the UAE. One might argue that the First Amendment requires us to treat Muslims in the UAE the same as Irish Catholics. Has there ever been such a ruling? I'm not aware of it.

Setting aside legal reasoning, Al Qaeda is a group that discriminates against non-Muslims, and for us to blind ourselves to this could be life-threatening.

The notion that Al Qaeda support in the Muslim world is under 1% requires substantiation. What I've seen is that Osama bin Laden is more popular than George Bush. Actual sworn-in members of terrorist groups may be under 1%, but terrorist sympathizers are clearly a higher figure.

Regarding playing the percentages, it could also apply to US citizens. However, the 14th Amendment requires us to blind ourselves in certain respects, and provide equal protection under law to all Americans, even if we know rationally that some are more likely to offend than others.

OK, just to play Devil's Advocate (because I agree with much of what you said, Rick):

The odds aren't static, as I noted above. McVeigh wasn't a Muslim. All Muslims are not alike, either individually or statistically. And they can come in blond blue-eyed versions as well, ones with American or European names who aren't noticably Muslim. John Walker Lindh, for example, only had to shave to "pass" as he was pure American in the first place. OK, he wasn't blond or blue-eyed, but he could've been. And our enemy today may be our friend tomorrow.

If we gear our responses to surface factors, such as religion or appearance, or to the enemy-of-the-moment, we miss the Big Picture. If we categorize ALL Muslims as terrorists, we alienate the vast majority that aren't and can actively help us if they want to. And we then have ZERO chance of moving them in our direction. How would WW2 have gone if we had categorized all blond blue-eyed Protestants as Nazis? Whither Sweden and Norway?

This is the age-old dilemma of engagement or isolationism. We either get the hell out of the Middle East entirely and hunker in the bunker, or we learn who our friends are (or could be), engage them, and bring them over to our side. We can't force them, we can't bend them to our will other than temporarily and at great cost. We can only do it by intertwining our affairs with theirs, making it in their best interests to play ball our way.

Our enemy is NOT a race or a religion, it's an ideology. An ideology of totalitarianism. For the moment, the greatest threat from that ideology is from Muslims. A generation ago, it was from communists. A generation before that, Nazis and fascists and Shinto imperialists. Our long-term strategies for combatting that ideology can not be based entirely on the enemy of the moment. If we go that direction, we are more likely to breed more enemies than conquer the one we face.

Reid, Congress wasn't consulted on the deal because the law which THEY passed several years ago specifically provided for them not to be consulted. Why? Because they are charged with passing laws, not enforcing and implementing them. Our government is not a parliamentary system, where there is no philosophical separation between the executive and the legislative components of government. The law established a committee and a process. Quibbling over whether a longer review was mandatory or not aside, the process was followed and the committee reached a decision. It is not Congress' place to overrule particular, individual executive or judicial decisions it doesn't like.

Rick, you are correct that the 14th Amendment does not apply to how we treat UAE citizens who are physically present in the UAE. And I'm glad to see you recognize that the President is on firm constitutional ground when he deprives enemy combatants of rights which, were they American citizens, they would have.

As for Al Qaeda, I agree with you that it has substantial sympathetic support among the population of the Middle East. But we are not without risks here, either. We've seen from some of the cartoon protests here in this country that we have some pretty angry Muslims here, too. Some of them are even citizens. But we can't spy on them and we can't deny them jobs just because of their religion or their national origin. There's nothing stopping some of those radicals from getting executive jobs in the port which would give them access to the same information that the UAE would get.

Killing the UAE deal might make a few people feel safer, but it would be a false sense of security. As Tully says, we have no way of knowing where the next attack on our way of life will come from. What's growing under the surface while we are all focused on radical Islam?

I have yet to see the critics of this deal discuss the impact killing it would have on our standing with the people of the Middle East. I think the risk of harm to American interests and lives is far greater from telling the most moderate, commerce-oriented, live-and-let-live nation in the region that we don't trust them than it would be from letting them run a few port terminals. How would Osama Bin Laden use this as propaganda to further his goals? I can hear him now: "George Bush said he was not against Islam, but only Al Qaeda. You see now what a lie that was. America opposes even the leaders of that bastion of immorality the UAE. The cowardly leaders of the UAE joined forces with the Americans to attack the messengers of the Prophet (pbuh), and still America says "You are not worthy." I tell you, Muslims, that America hates Allah and his Prophet, and America hates you. Fellow learders, I tell you that, as America dealt falsely with their friend the UAE, so will America deal falsely with you."

There is a serious security risk involved in cancelling the deal, too.

What Tully and Pat said.

And let's not forget that cancelling this deal could have a negative impact on foreign investor confidence, and that we are able to sustain deficit spending and a great big honking trade deficit at least in part due to the strength of foreign investment and the regard that these investors have for our currency.

Suppose foreign investors decide they'd rather invest in China or India or elsewhere in SE Asia because America's business climate is becoming untrustworthy due to xenophobia. Wouldn't that be a wheelbarrow full of laughs? Or would it be a wheelbarrow full of greenbacks for a loaf of bread?

Very nice site. Please keep updating it. Red Grass Lose or not: http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/ , Industrious Game is always Profound Cards Big is feature of Greedy Cosmos , Red is feature of Faithful Round Full, Industrious, Collective nothing comparative to Central