Just to clarify, the Massachusetts sanctions were invalidated by SCOTUS in the Crosby vs. NFTC opinion (2000)(http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/99-474.html ) on the grounds that they had been preempted by the less stringent federal sanctions. Were such conflict exists, the state law is invalidated.

I think what could be interesting is the interplay between WTO and the recent trend in SCOTUS opinions restricting Congress' Commerce Clause reach. Treaties have the force of federal statute so I wonder if they can be held to cover state actions that don't directly pertain to commerce. Two Congressional statutes, one dealing with gun possession and one dealing with violence against women, have been invalidated because of an insufficient connection to commerce. I think it would be interesting to see if the WTO could be held to apply to state measures that were clearly health-and-safety measures.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If it were a German company -- 9/11 was planned there as well -- nobody would say "boo" about this deal. As the Wall Street Journal points out, "Yes, some of the 9/11 hijackers were UAE citizens. But then the London subway bombings last year were perpetrated by citizens of Britain, home to the company (P&O) that currently manages the ports that Dubai Ports World would take over."

I would point out the the people doing the planning in Germany weren't Germans, thus you can't really consider a German company in this situation to be analogous. Further, Dubai banks were used as a financial conduit for 9-11. Further, the fact that they'd be running the port operations rather than security doesn't change that the company wouldn't have access to how the port is run. I would argue, based on this, that the calling the concern racist overstates the case.

Having said that, I don't think the company s/b automatically disqualified, but I do hope that a thorough security vetting was done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is probably one of the better analyses out there of this complicated issue. I too am disturbed about the racial angle to this story, especially as the Liberal blogosphere has jumped on this with such alacrity. The corporate side needs to be highlighted far more than it has.

It reminds me of the beginning half of Farhenheit 911 that also focused on the Bush family's relationship with the Saudis, and did nothing to debunk the securitarian discourse that is virtually a mirage under which civil rights and free flow of peoples have been seriously eroded. Sure, it may work to use this discourse against the Bush administration, but far more damage in justifying fear and paranoia could result.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Our country desperately needs an opposition party that is not fearfully paranoid about Arabs and Muslims. That kind of thinking leads to concentration camps, which Bush has already established in Guantanamo and elsewhere and which many hoped the next Demo President would raze to the ground. Looking at Hillary Clinton and Chuck's cheap anti-UAE (Dubai!) stunt, we should expect an expansion of such camps, since obviously _all_ Arabs and Muslims, whatever their words or actions are under suspicion of terrorism until they can prove they aren't thinking such thoughts.

I think most Americans when they aren't thinking out of fear want to go back to a pre-Bush, pre-paranoia, pre-torture, pro-Constitution USA. Unfortunately, Hillary's opposition to a completely run-of-the-mill port management deal just because !!IT'S AN ARAB COMPANY!! means she aims to carry on Bush's lawlessness and paranoia. She represents the worst of the "New Democrats" and of our post-9/11 country.

We need a true opposition party that represents the majority in this country that wants the US out of Iraq and the oil, arms, and Israel lobbies out of our foreign policy. I hope this calculated abuse of our nation's fears and of our Arab citizens is the death knell for Hillary as a national politician.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I agree that the corporate part of this needs to be played up more and in doing so will probably unearth (again) some high level administration ties to the UAE oligarchs who run this. That being said, here are my questions:

1) Isn't this UAE company a state-run company? If so, I think this changes the dynamics of this relationship.
2) Is there any truth to the fact that after 9/11 the UAE refused to allow American intelligence to trace back funding to possible conspirators from UAE?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Considering Bush's coziness with the bin Laden family, and their own coziness connections to financing acts of terror, the details on this deal do set off alarm bells. Dubai Ports World is financed by the state run banks of Dubai, and those same banks do have connections to financing terrorism. And to answer a previous poster's questions, no, this deal was not given the 45-day security review that is required by law. Instead, Treasury sec. John Snow, the man who seems to know the most about this deal, was once an exec in the company is the one shepherding this deal through. Racist? Only if you consider crony political appointees a race.

I'm not claiming any hatred of the people of Dubai (most of whom could likely care less about the success or failure of this port deal), but there are genuine concerns about the money trail, the ever-present implications of cronyism, and the utter disregard that this administration has had for the real bread and butter of homeland security (y'know, securing ports, securing nuclear materials, etc.) I'm not saying this deal shouldn't go through, just that it deserves the scrutiny that it is receiving.

And if this is the issue where Republicans are willing to hoist W on his own petard, I say roll up those sleeves & get hoisting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm confused, so maybe someone can clarify this for my simple mind. I agree that this is deal involves money, but exactly how does this benefit the US government? Do we get to have cheaper goods if the UAE operates these ports? Or is it because we have senior administration officials who have stakes in the UAE? Likewise, how does the UAE benefit from operating our ports?

If someone can clarify, I would appreciate it! Thanks!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

to make sure they own this bill to block the deal. Dollars to donuts this is a token measure that will allow Republicans in tough 2006 re-election races to grandstand. Bush will veto, Republicans will stump to get a super-majority to overturn the veto, the bill will be passed and Frist et al will have successfully marked themselves as both moving away from Bush and security focused. Its actually quite a clever ploy. . . . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't care who it is - should ANY nation allow its port security to be run by foreign companies, even companies from nations with which they have excellent diplomatic and cultural ties? I have nothing against the Norwegians, for example, but I'd prefer national security to be a little more... in-house. Am I being xenophobic? Perhaps I am. Perhaps there is some way in which entrusting your port security to foreign countries doesn't look like a security risk. Of course, I'm just a layperson. I'm also extremely surprised that this isn't an area that is under federal administration rather than hired out... hold on. No, I really shouldn't be surprised. Everything else is for sale.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"The U.S., E.U. and Japan -- the dominant service economies -- have been pushing hard to get a deal done on government procurement that would bring public purchasing of goods and services into the WTO framework. Their goal is to give foreign-based multinationals "national status," meaning that governments couldn't favor domestic firms over foreign firms for any reason (except for security issues, and this case wouldn't be likely to qualify as such).

Let's assume that this UAE port deal was the best one out there -- that they offered the lowest bid among highly-qualified firms. Under the framework that we've been pushing, it would be a sanction-able violation of WTO rules to discriminate against the company because it's based in the Middle East."

does this mean that the WTO may stick their nose into this issue if it does in fact get vetoed?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

isn't this convienent?
just like he "didn't know" jack abramoff, i suppose.

article link here

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've been to Dubai and Abu Dhabi (sp?) on the order of twenty or thirty times over several years in the Navy. The people are mostly just like you and me...although, as I recall, everything shuts down around lunchtime when folks go pray. I've had nothing but good experiences in the UAE, as a people, they don't appear to harbor any ill will towards us, and I believe they simply wish to peacefully expand their shipping empire. Further, we already get boatloads (literally) of goods shipped in from UAE operated ports; I don't see an "expanded security risk" from having a boat loaded under a UAE operation docking in the US under a UAE operation.

However, I oppose this deal simply out of principle: on a one-to-ten scale of increasing general suckiness, any State-Owned Company automatically receives a score of 15 by my estimation; 15,000 extra-sucky points if the State in question throws the head of subject company in jail, fines the company, and then assumes ownership (Yukos). But, by that time, said State isn't worried about the appearance of sucky. After all, they've got the oil, the company, the currency, the parliament, the executive, the judiciary, the tax code, and the jails to fill with businessmen guilty of...well, it really doesn't matter, does it? The formal charge of "Flamboozlement" will do just fine when you're a State that wishes to Own.

Err...which brings me back to why I'd rather not be in the business of doing business with State Owned Companies.

I support Frist and Hilary, Landrieu and Vitter on putting the breaks--at least temporarily--on this one. Who would've dreamed of hearing that one?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I agree that the anti-Arab hysteria is pretty disgusting. We had already outsourced port operations to Great Britain--this just changes the paymaster, IMHO.
John Nichols article is also focused on corporatism, which to me is the far bigger issue. Given the jobs situation in the US, though, why are we outsourcing port operations to any foreign corporation?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The only concern I would have about this issue is this: Does it take away American jobs? If the answer is 'no' then I have no problem with it. After all, Americas ports and borders haven't changed that much as far a security goes in the last five years.
Sure, American may be reacting to this on a xenophobic basis but the next question to ask is 'Where did that xenophobia come from and who's been fanning the flames of it, at least sublimnally?'
Americans seem to have the mind set of the walking wounded since 9/11 and it's going to be a long road back before they trust the world or the world trusts America. It's a sad senario where everybody losses in the end.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Many objections to the UAE port operations deal are based on security issues rather than racism (aka xenophobia). Although we are not turning over control of port security in the UAE port operating deal Bush has proposed, we might as well be. The deal is proclaimed only to involve "operations" of US ports. But control of information related to facilities and operations is a critical component of security. If the United States retains knowledge and information related to the layout and operations of our ports, we impede the ability of someone to plan an attack against these facilities. When we lose control of the information about facilities and operations, we lose a lot of our security abilities. If we give others access to this information, we make ourselves much more vulnerable to attack. For this reason, we should not allow any foreign entity to take over management of critical components of US infrastructure like the operation of our ports.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here at the Long Beach-Los Angeles port we have plans to build Liquid Nitrogen Gas storage--contiguous with a population in the millions. It doesn't matter that the cargo ships are running into each other out there or that they are coming so fast and furiously they need sometimes to pile up like terds at the bottom of gramp's outhouse. They just keep coming.

That may not be the port authority's fault, but no one's doing anything to sort it out. And prevailing winds are incoming. Connections to our water supply and our oil islands are clearly marked for maintenance purposes.

Maybe that's because it is American policy to always wait until the horses are gone before closing the barn door? We do not act until it is too late. The taxpayer's association wouldn't like it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Steve Gilliard basically says this:
Arabs = UAE = a corrupt people = terrorists, but I am not a racist.

BTW, don't you guys actually link to this racist F**ktard via the "Best of the blogs" page?

...

My biggest concern is: does this take jobs away from Americans? If it does I oppose it. Charity begins at home.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank you for this excellent analysis. I was also shocked to find myself agreeing with bush and the wsj editorial page. Xenophobia is dumb... almost as dumb as showboating politicians who, apparently, rarely know the facts pertaining to their showboating.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There are so many things wrong here! Where to begin?

UAE is an oligarchic federation run by a Supreme Council and where a population of 3 million people doesn’t have the right to vote.
The Supreme Council consists of the individual rulers of the seven emirates. The President and Vice-President are elected by the Supreme Council every five years. Although unofficially, the Presidency is de facto hereditary to the Al-Nahyan clan of Abu Dhabi and the Premiership is hereditary to the Al-Maktoom clan of Dubai. The Supreme Council also picks the Council of Ministers.
It is common practice for employers to retain employees' passports for the duration of the employment contract to prevent expatriate employees from changing jobs. This is an illegal practice, but it is almost never investigated, let alone punished by the government. On termination of an employment contract, certain categories of expatriates are banned from obtaining a work permit in the country for six months. The United States Department of State has cited widespread instances of blue collar labor abuse in the general context of the United Arab Emirates.
The government has been criticized by human rights agencies such as Human Rights Watch for its inaction in addressing the discrimination against Asian workers in the emirate. Salary structures based on nationality, sex, age, and race rather than on qualification are common.
According to Ansar Burney Trust, an illegal sex industry thrives in the emirates, especially in Dubai. This complements the tourism and hospitality industry, a major part of Dubai's economy. According to Antislavery.org, UAE has been found to use child jockeys in camel racing, violating both human rights laws and child sex laws.
A website www.mafiwasta.com is campaigning to pressure the government of the UAE into signing up to International Labour Organisation core conventions on freedom of association. Strikes and unions are currently banned in the UAE and many labourers are virtual prisoners, having paid huge agents' fees in order to obtain jobs and visas.
UAE is a drug transshipment point for traffickers given its proximity to Southwest Asian drug producing countries; the UAE's position as a major financial center makes it vulnerable to money laundering. The above information is from the CIA -World Factbook and Wikepedia.
NOW let’s sign a multi billion dollar contract with a government company of this country to run U.S. ports. Is there really no one else in the WORLD to operate U.S. ports? Is there any money for the Bushes in this? How come so much money is involved and the President is kept in the dark? Is someone is trying to deceive HIM? Again! I’m Weary of Mass Deception. I do think the U.S. will be less safe, with more corruption and it will be supportive of a regime whose undemocratic ways it claims to abhor. Why is there such an odor of venality with everything this government does? “Tell me who you hang out with and I’ll tell you who you are”. WAKE UP AMERICA!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Despite the contention that this is a racist commentary from "Left Blogistan," there is plenty of material indicating that this is about cronyism... pure and simple. (Read David Sirota's take on the Huffington Post.) But you don't have to stamp your passport on your way to the blog-o-sphere... When the Bush administration at once cries "veto" on any legislation preventing such a transaction, and then denies any culpability by claiming midnight hour ignorance, well, there you have it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THE
NATIONAL REPORTER, usa ©

All The News That Fits

From the desk of
Michael O'McCarthy
@
OPOLITIQUE@AOL.COM
What Price America?
The Coin: Our Stupidity and Cowardice.
The Result: Bush and His Cabal Have Just Sold Us!

The deal despotic rulers make: They sell anything and everything. The trust of the people, the rights of the people, the property of the people, the welfare of the people and finally, the security and safety of the people.

The Dubai Deal is the price we are paying for Bush's collusion with the Saudi's - with Bin Laden.

(Please oh please Do Not Forget that Bin Laden was a CIA pawn against the Soviets in Afghanistan - as was Hussein against Iran - as Ortega was against Cuba and other Central American insurgencies --- the fucking list is endless. Please Oh Please remember that Bin Laden operated then, and now, at the largesse of the Saudis and other oil royalty who own and run the Middle East.)

The Dubai Deal is about the corrupt, duplicitous relationship between international corporate capitalists and corporate-state owned enterprises. Whether its Exxon or Texaco that controls the domestic engine of US corporate capital or Halliburton or Dubai Ports World, Inc., the problem lies not in the ethnic or nationality of the ownership.

The state corporate capitalists who own and control George Dubai, (or Dubya as his wildcat Texas buddies call him,) use national identity as a Red Herring: their loyalty is to their class and to their class only.

The pawns - the petit managers, from Bush, (a class member never hurts in the Captain’s chair,) down to the four mid level managers in the middle of this deal, Stewart Baker from the Department of Homeland Security, the Treasury Department's Clay Lowery and Treasury Secretary John Snow and David Sanborn, of the Maritime Administration were doing routine State Corporate Capitalists business. They were doing everyday business.

Their "shock" at the bounce back is that anyone was paying attention to what is commonplace ... what goes on all the fucking time with these scavengers of the people's property. They do not perceive of themselves as traitors. They see themselves not as Americans, but as corporate soldiers for entities that have no nationality.

And it is OUR property; just like it’s OUR airwaves they are stealing from us and selling to the highest bidder for the most profit.

Just like Coca Cola and Disney and Yahoo and Google are doing business as usual in the Stalinist, Authoritarian, Slave Labor Dictatorship of China ... the corporate list of immoral thieves is fucking endless.

The multi billion-dollar deficit to finance the forced "democratic" conversion of the Middle East so it is safer for the energy conglomerate to do business is the most obvious.

And the really sad, pathetic, most unacceptable fact is not that they are doing it. It is what they do.

Just like the cottonmouth snake you give a ride across the river: it bites you to death, because that is what it does.

No the sad unconscionable thing is: We are allowing them to do it.

We are nation of Judas. For the price of shopping at Wal Mart we are selling our future down the corroded toilet.



The National Reporter, usa is a division of the National Picture Company©

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When you find yourself in agreement with the Bushies and the WSJ, you need to re-think. Some industries are so vital to the economic and/or physical security of this country that it's in our national interest that they be kept in American hands and abide by American laws. I number among those industries steelmakers, defense contractors, a healthy percentage of agriculture, rail, and our ports. The ports shouldn't be managed by anyone but Americans. Ideally, the ports would be nationalized and run by a federal-union-private partnership of some sort.

The outcry over the ports sale demonstrates how many of us understand this. That a writer for AlterNet doesn't get this and has instead fallen for the neoliberal fairytale is sort of troubling. We do have national interests, you know, national interests that shouldn't be managed by foreigners.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's suppose that this were a Chinese company buying Lockeed Martin. What would everyone think of that? There is a definite security threat here, and if you all can not see that it is because you are as blind as GWB.

OK. Security is run by the government the argument goes. Well. Let me have an inside look at how that security functions and I guarantee you that I will be able to find a way around it.

Do you think it would have been wise for the Pearl Harbor naval base to have been run by the Japanese prior to WWII?
Sure. Why not. We were not are war with them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't find myself agreeing with W or with Mr. Holland on this issue. I haven't heard anyone say this deal stinks because the company is Arab-owned. This is the Bush MO of putting up canards and straw men in order to try to control the message. JH (and others on this board apparently) bought it hook. line, and sinker.

One problem with this deal is that the company is state owned. The "state" in question formally recognized the Taliban as the legal governing authority in Afghanistan. Another problem is the financial ties to this company by Treasury Secretary (and former CEO of the rail company CSX) John Snow. Bush does not read the news, let alone liberal blogs so to suggest that his race baiting is a response to them does not hold water.

As far as his veto threat: does anybody remember what how he resolved the last issue where he threatened veto? That's right--appear to capitulate on the issue then sign the bill into law with a "signing statement" addendum claiming the new law's nullification.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WAWA BLOG:
http://www.wearewideawake.org


February 22, 2006

Microsoft, Israel and Vanunu

Tonight in Israel more than a few government officials maybe wishing they had allowed Mordechai Vanunu to quietly leave Israel in April 2004 when he was released from 18 years in jail for telling the world the truth that Israel had gone nuclear. Instead Israel chose to keep him under severe restrictions and constant surveillance.

Today in a Jerusalem court it was revealed that Israel had asked Microsoft to hand over all the details of Vanunu's Hotmail account before a court order had been obtained.

According to Vanunu, "Microsoft obeyed the orders and gave them all the details…three months before [I was] arrested and my computers [were confiscated]…it is strange to ask Microsoft to give this information [before obtaining] the court order to listen to my private conversations. It means they wanted to go through my emails in secret, or maybe [with] the help of the secret services, the Shaback, Mossad."


Attorney Michael Sfard repeatedly requested Police Representative Mr. Peterburg, to specifically state what type of espionage activity Vanunu was accused of. According to Vanunu, "The policeman did not have any answers and said that he brought all the evidence to the court. When Sfard asked him again about any material related to the 'espionage' [charge] Peterburg had no answers.


"Sfard proved that the police had misled the judges who gave the orders to arrest me: to search my room, to go through my email, to confiscate my computers and [that they] misled Microsoft to believe they are helping in a case of espionage."


"The State came to the court with two special secret Government orders; Hisaion [documents or information that are deemed confidential by the government and kept from the court, the defendant, and lawyers.] This allows the prosecution to keep documents related to [my] court hearing secret. One was from the Minister for Interior Security and one from the Minister of Defense."


Vanunu's secretly taped police interrogations, his 2004 Christmas Eve arrest for "attempting to leave the country" while traveling the four miles from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, the confiscation of his private property by thirty IDF that stormed into his room at St. George's Cathedral have all "been done…under the false and misleading statements to the courts of 'suspicion of espionage', and yet they are not charging me with spy crimes… [And] the fact is that I have not committed any crimes."


Vanunu's trial resumes on May 1, 2005 and so does the exposure of a Mid East democracy that makes accusations of espionage without providing the evidence.

MUCH MORE on WAWA:
http://www.wearewideawake.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Racism, which often is the basis for US policy, is NOT the problem here. It is "free trade" and privitization run amok. Racism the cause is a distraction that takes us on the wrong path, one that hides the economic basis for this situation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If we were to prohibit Arabs or Arab-Americans from working at the docks, that would be racism.
Being opposed to the involvement of a country whose leaders have ties to financing terrorism is common sense. Last time I checked, German leaders didn't finance the September 11th attacks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The biggest issue in our land is the war between the people and the corporate establishment. The American public has been brain-washed into believing that class warfare is a war waged by the poor against the rich. The truth is, that in America, class warfare is a war waged by the rich against the poor.

This war against the people is carried out with the blessing of our one party with two names. Neither of which represents the people. Our votes only choose which parties' candidates represent the corporate establishment.

The only strength the people have is numbers, the only way to fight his war is with a grassroots movement. The people must take control of both parties and force them to represent us. The time is now, before the election, when our votes have power. Join The Lincoln Initiative and help make "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" a reality. Click on do it now

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"No Suffrage" in UAE according to the CIA website:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ae.html

This is at least one reason comparing Dubai Ports World to a British or German company is not really fair or accurate. British or German companies are at least based in countries with democratic oversight.

Haven't seen anybody point this out yet, and this company is state owned, so it definitely seems relevant.

Apparently we punish Palestine when it democratically elects its leaders by withdrawing aid, yet we reward the non-democratic UAE by giving its state owned company Dubai Ports World control of a slew of US port operations.

At the same time, we've invaded and occupy Iraq supposedly now for the sole purpose of instituting a democratic government and spreading freedom and democracy throughout the Middle East! Is it possible for our policies to be more hypocritical?

And wasn't a deal by a Chinese state owned oil company, Cnooc Ltd., to purchase the Western oil company, Unocal Corp, recently scuttled due to fears about security? This is also something that I have not seen brought up.

Its perfectly within our rights as a sovereign nation to decide whom we do business with and we should not by default reward companies/countries that are run by undemocratic policies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've heard elsewhere that in the U.A.E., often, workers are not paid or paid so little as to constitute near slavery.

Dubai Ports World will not be required to keep its business records in the U.S., so how long does anyone think it will be before D.P.W. starts sneaking that slave labor into those six ports to try to break the Longshoreman's Union? This may the OTHER story that has not been mentioned.

Decimating union influence and living wages has been the core of the Bush administration agenda for over five years now; why should we think the ports deal will not follow the same pattern?

(Also, if anyone wants to get another glimpse into the future of our port system, just Google "NAFTA Corridor" and see what comes up. Dig into it and what you'll find will curl your hair.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alike most controversies birthed by this administration, this one too has a deeper underlying issue: the privatization of public resources. This deal is merely another manifestation of the White House crusade to sell off every shred of public property. This time it happens to be critical US ports.

Virtually any essential public resource or property is up for grabs now, and all Bush-Cheney friends are the takers. If you want to know what happens when you sell off important infrastructure, ask the Californians about their energy crisis or India about water rights.

Like most middle-class Americans, I have no idea who will own the ground I'm standing on right now by 2008. It certainly won't be the majority of US citizens, who supposedly back that dollar bill.

At least our government will have lots of shiny new labor camps to house all of us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What is it with Liberals? Why do they so easily distract us away from the key issues of the Bush Regime? Racism - xenophobia? ...as the "real" story behind the Dubai deal. Are you fucking nuts?

With the exception of the extraordinary gouging of the American taxpayer to pay for the billion dollar deficit financing of State Corporate Capitalism's Middle Eastern Regime Change policy, how much clearer can reality be: These are State Corporate Capitalists who are doing business as usual. They just bungled the PR on this particular "deal."

Are Republicans and other elected officials using the race card to their advantage in this transaction? Of course: with the exception of Southerners rich white people still don't trust people of color to clean their houses, do their gardening, much less act as nannies for their kids.

The United States is a nation constructed on racial genocide and racial slavery. The body politique has still not addressed either issue: Native American reparations, reparations to enslaved Africans, land stolen from Mexico and "Mexican Americans."

Up pops the convenient the Arab card and white America - terrorized America as a whole goes nuts. Terrorized first by the 9/11 catastrophe, (with or without the direct complicity of the Bush regime,) and then terrorized over and over and over again by the Regime's unrelenting lies of terror.

But that is NOT the operative here. It is a result: America is being stolen right from under the lazy asses of its populace. Despite personal issues with who they invite to go hunting, play golf, go yachting, these Corporate State Capitalists will do business with anyone ... and if they are the Devil himself, then with his surrogates in China, Saudi Arabia, Dubai anywhere there is profit to be made and people to be fooled. Wake the fuck up!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Do you always accept the frame that the right puts around your viewpoints? Who have you heard from the left saying that we shouldn't allow the ports deal to go through because they're Arabs? I haven't heard that from the left. I've heard right-wing pundits paint the left that way, but that's all. Why are you buying it?

It's really simple. This is about perceptions. The administration, the GOP, the Bush defenders all use perceptions to stay in power. They've used "security" and "9/11" to win the last mid-term elections and the last presidential election. Karl Rove says he's going to do it again. He and Cheney have no qualms about saying that the Democrats would leave this country vulnerable. This port deal, if it hadn't been perpetrated by the administration, is exactly the kind of thing they would have nailed the Democratic party with as proof that we have a pre-9/11 mindset and would leave our nation's security in the hands of a country with ties to terrorists.

If you don't think this should be fired right back in Bush's face, if you don't think this completely obliterates Rove's contention that Democrats have a pre-9/11 mindset, then you're hopelessly inept in dealing with the manipulators of mass perception that are keeping the Republicans in power.

And, the bottom line of this whole thing is this: Blocking the port deal doesn't hurt an ethnic group. And it sure as hell doesn't hurt a race of people. Those who would be hurt most by this are financial backers of the Republican party, people who have business with the UAE and don't want to risk losing it. I don't give a damn what happens to the Carlyle Group, or CSX, or Bush Sr., or James Baker. And if Madeleine Albright loses business because of it, that's just too damn bad for her, too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Your analsis of the Port Deal is another example of liberal gobbleygook, and I am a self-professed Liberal! What Bush is doing is just another example of the arrogance of these people and their corporative backers. Rather than wringing your hands about the unfairness and misunderstandings concerning this deal, you should understand why this issue can unite the whole country, once and for all, against our corrupt regime. This time they have truly overreached themselves. No one is anti-Arab, but the Emirate States are totally corrupt feudal kingdoms and certainly can't be trusted. I really expect more serious analysis from Alter-Net.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is a frustrating thread. I never defended the UAE deal, or argued that it was indeed a good thing to allow foreign control of our ports.

I made a narrow argument that I am happy to stand behind: saying that Arabs or Muslims are, almost by definition, terror threats is based on Islamo-phobia, plain and simple.

I've yet to see any evidence that this deal would actually impact our port security (which, by the way, is a complete joke that is not discussed nearly as often as it should be).

The real issue is the "free-trade" mentality that places corporate goals before responsive public policy.

If you want to argue that we shouldn't do business with despotic, corrupt, anti-democratic regimes with piss-poor human rights records, go find someone who disagrees and take it up with them.

That's why I brought up Apartheid South Africa and Burma. Closing our markets to regimes that are known for their poor governance is one of the best tools in our foreign policy toolbox. It's not me who wants to give that away under the rubric of "liberalizing" government procurement.

And if you think "nobody on the left" is arguing that this deal is a security risk because the UAE is an Arab country, I suggest you go read some liberal blogs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The big issue is that on the worldwide basis, the nationhood and statehood is turned over to corporate hoods: Walmart welcomes the official visit of Ken Lay with a 21-gun salute, while thousands of $1.15/hour peons cheer.
As for all of this anti-Arab, anti-Muslim screaming going on, how about if a company run by a black, say Oprah, had won the contract? Would the GOP walruses get up and protest because "blacks are known dope dealers?"
And in passing, this analogy works for "bomb-in-turban" tempest, would cartoons smearing blacks be equally cool as an "expression of freedom of speech in an enlightened society"?
After the Watts riots the press started treating the black issues a lot more seriously, too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Excuse me when I say that it is a crock of bull to reduce this argument to violations of WTO agreements. "O-o-o-o-o! They could sue us!!!" This administration doesn't give a rat's behind about the Geneva Accords or treaties outlawing wars of aggression, so what the hell should they care about WTO agreements?? Oh, I forgot -- it's about how much MORE money the capitalist swine can sock away, isn't it? We certainly shouldn't stand in the way of profits, even if it does cost us another "World Trade Center" at the hands of the perps.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Josh, you're spot on, particularly with that last sentence that the problem is democracy versus corporatism. P & O was just as corporate and crony as they come. Margaret Thatcher called them the "fabric of an empire." There had plenty of their own corporate shennigans but nobody said anything while they were running American ports. If people wanna bitch about corporatism, than do it consistantly and not just when an Arab corporation comes into it.

P.S. I also thought your Hamas analysis was far better reasoned than some of the other stuff publised on Alternet. Thanks for the good work.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Joshua Holland -- how do you know there are too many syllables in xenophobia for the president?

Bill Clinton understood condom and it only has two syllables.
F. Eugene Barber www.readerskorner.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

while we are talking about racism and xenophobia, let's mention the Arab and Muslim states that forbid practice of any religion other than fundamentalist Muslim. Let's mention that some Arabs and Muslims call for annihilation of the infidels, especially the Jews. Let's mention the denial of rights of women and the sexual and wage slavery of children in some Muslim states. Let's mention the violence that erupts when such people and governments disagree with our viewpoints.
Let's mention the desire for such people to annihilate the western way of life and some of their attacks on innocent people.
I'm not saying ALL Arabs and Muslims worldwide are like this, but when we mention racism and xenophobia, these days, some Arabs and Muslims take the prize in that area.
So are we Americans racist for not wanting such interests possibly controlling our ports?
If it were 1942, would I be a racist for not wanting Germany, Italy or Japan to control our ports? Would I be a racist if I say I think that even having the British or anyone other than Americans control our ports it is a bad idea?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes, our ports being handled by a foreign state is making us no safer than we were before. Two things come to mind: (1) The so-called "war on terrorism" is really a joke, used only to smear governments that don't want to do business with us; (2) Guess who profits from this deal? None other than John Snow, our Treasury Secretary who engineered this deal and whose railways are connected to the ports. Sweet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Veto & Ignorance!
Well! Doesn't this light up the whole scene!
Thanks for being so succint!
Unfortunately:
Greed is everywhere! And ridicule doesn't kill!" G.W.Bush
LOL, ...no tears left!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OK I am putting on my flame suit but really you myopic libs need to set aside the Bush hatred and the corporate bashing and think ouside your tired, little box.
Has it occurred to anyone here that all the oil from the middle east passes through the straights of Hormuz? And that the two most important countries that shoreline to this most important body of water are Iran and UAE? And that the UAE has proven to be friendly to us and allow us to have an extra set of eyes and ears (not to mention military staging) and that Iran (no matter how much you libs want to deny it) are up to BAD THINGS over there. Please read this from Iranian leadership:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/26/92748.shtml

O and just FYI USA will NEVER be out of Iraq- we have two huge installations (military bases) that we have esablished in Kurdish controlled Northern Iraq so that we are strategically placed between Syria and Iran. In the chess game that is military geo politics- George W Bush will be regarded as a genius as time goes on. It would be nice if everyone played by the rules and it was all good but that simply isnt the case- and for all of you blame America first and foremost types- try as you might, your loud (but dull) tounges will never convince anyone that we are a pox on the world, to the contrary without us, freedom would NOT ring for a long list of countries. Iran and Syria want Iraq destabilized- why? they DREAD the thought of FREE elections invading their dictatorships!

If you can all get past your Bush hating and look at the world a little more objectively some things may make more sense

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lots of envigorating comments throughout. My heart rate and bp have had a field day. So who is going to buy the White House? Will a future leader be a government representative of another foreign country?

There is no xenophobia here, it is national pride in an uproar. This deal reads just like a super-sized corporate raider attack only its the U.S. rather than some unlucky corporation. The net impact is pretty much the same. Those that buy and sell do swell, those who were in the ranks lose their homeland, sale after sale.

So get with it, learn Farsi, Chinese, and yes, learn Swahili so you get along with the rest of the refugees in Darfur.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Over in The Mix.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

First of all, We don,t really know what happened on 9-11. Bushco has offered NO PROOF of any of it's claims. None of their claims are supported by any of the evidence.
We know nothing about any of the patsies on those planes, except we do know that at least 5 of the alleged hijackers are alive and well in their various countries of origin: they have come forward and been interviewed by BBC and others.
We also know that the head of Pakistani intell (ISI), which was the CIA funnel of money to the Mujahadeen and Osma bin Ladin during the 1980's and early 1990's, who is known to have wired $100,000 to "Mohammed Atta" just prior to 9-11, was in Washington,DC the week of 9-11, meeting with many Bushco officials, and having breakfast the morning of 9-11 with Senator Bob Graham, one of the authors of the USA PATRIOT Act.
I don't claim to have the answers, but these are the kinds of unanswered questions and wierd coincidents that usually trigger a RICCO investigation when a crime of this magnitude occurs. Too many of us have been lulled into a trance by these masterful manipulators that all any one can do is repeat the Bushco focus group tested mantras that we are now so familiar with.
So, aside from all the media bruhaha about outsourcing our security, don't you think we should be highly suspicious of Bushco's true motives in all this? What has he done that has been good for us? and when has he EVER been honest about selling his handlers' plans to an uninformed and generally gullible public ?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Port security and racism matter nothing in this, but they do steer any investigation into groupthink that cannot find anything illegal.

Illegal is what Madsen is reporting: It is TREASON -- which Alternet keeps thinking can be ostrich-headed and goes away when Dubya is gone and Dem's get in.

But it ain't. What IS going away is the hope in Americans that Alternet and other terrified-of-terror ( tot ) Dem's STIFFEN and RESIST against RepublicaNazis. Read archives and daily entries at Wayne Madsen Report (dot) com
The guy is a peed-off freakin' intelligence (NSA) ex-agent and the credibility of his news and secrets is the usual CIA GOLD Standard. As an example, quote:

February 21, 2006 -- The Houses of Bush, Sabah, and Maktoum. The Bush Crime Family's close business dealings with the royal houses of Kuwait (the Sabah family) and Dubai (the Maktoum family) either borders on or is treason according to information received from U.S. military and Persian Gulf sources by WMR.

The Sabah family and their business cohorts are reportedly skimming hundreds of millions of dollars from the shipping of military materiel through Kuwait to U.S. forces in Iraq. Moreover, much of this money is being used to fund the Sunni insurgency in Iraq that is directed against U.S. troops. In 1993, former President George H. W. Bush was awarded an honorary doctorate by Kuwait University and Kuwait's highest honor, the Order of Mubarak the Great. Bush was accompanied on a Kuwait Airways flight by his sons Neil and Marvin and former Secretary of State James Baker III, former chief of staff John Sununu, and Joint Chiefs Operations Director Gen. Thomas Kelly. After the trip, Neil landed lucrative contracts with the Kuwaiti Ministry of Electricity and Water. Marvin secured defense contracts for his clients. Baker nailed down deals for Enron. To ratchet things up with Saddam, Kuwait staged a round up of some Iraqi whiskey smugglers said to be planning the assassination of the elder Bush during his visit to Kuwait. President Clinton launched a cruise missile attack on Iraq in retaliation for the phony assassination attempt.

The Bush Crime Family: Texas Yankees in the Gulf Emirs' courts: Dubya, Poppy, Neil, Marvin, and Jeb.

How many people died so Poppy Bush could be awarded Kuwait's Order of Mubarak the Great?
[...]
Neil also developed close connections to the Maktoum family of Dubai, the same family that has interests in the state-owned firm, Dubai Ports World, that is poised to take over the operations of six U.S. ports (New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia-Camden, Miami, New Orleans, and Baltimore) after its purchase of the British-owned Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (P&O Co.).

Shaikh Hamdan bin Rashid al Maktoum, the Finance Minister of Dubai and someone who certainly had his pulse on the millions of dollars sent through the emirate to the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and Pakistani madrassas and assorted Islamic “charities.”
UAE banking insiders have revealed that accounts used to fund the Taliban and Al Qaeda involved members of the Dubai royal family. Banking insiders in Dubai report that in March 2002, U.S. Secretary of Treasury Paul O’Neill visited Dubai and asked for documents on a $109,500 money transfer from Dubai to a joint account held by hijackers Mohammed Atta and Marwan al Shehhi at Sun Trust Bank in Florida. O’Neill also asked UAE authorities to close down accounts used by Al Qaeda and affiliated partners like Victor Bout. The UAE complained about O’Neill’s demands to the Bush administration. O’Neill’s pressure on the UAE and Saudis contributed to Bush firing him as Treasury Secretary in December 2002.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yesterday I wrote 3 paragraphs criticising this article and proving that Alternet and The Mix are spewers of paranoid nonsense and that liberals should reject them and look at newspapers which address all the facts, not just a few or in this case none at all.

Can someone tell me why this post was deleted?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's see if I got this straight:

The Dubai Ports group is brought in to run at least 6 US ports --and perhaps as many as 25 or 30 -- as a "reward" for signing a free trade agreement with the US. That's only natural. The UAE is a Persian Gulf state without oil resources so it acts as the "Switzerland of the Gulf" -- i.e., basically as banker for the other oil-rich Gulf nations. We need countries like that in competing with China and India for energy resources. [The UAE also deals with China and India on behalf of the Iranian side of the Persian Gulf -- just like they do with us.]

The UAE is also a big player in The Carlyle Group. That shouldn't bother anybody except the folks that were never entirely comfortable with the old saw: "what's good for General Motors is good for the country." That statement has somehow been morphed into: "what's good for the Carlyle Group IS the country." GM never had it quite that good, no matter how hard they tried.

The ports deal follows on the recent appointment by Bush of David Sanborn to be head of the US Maritime Administration. Sanborn is currently Senior Executive at Dubai Ports, Inc.

US Treasury Secretary John Snow was recently CEO of CTX Corp. which sold its ports services subsidiary to DP Int'l for $1.5 billion in 2004. Snow has since distanced himself from a deal he no doubt had a major hand in.

That means Dubai Ports, Int'l. has come a full circle -- if one wants to put it that way. It was the Carlyle group that pumped $8 billion into CTX and kept John Snow on as CEO. They knew they had another use for him some day.

'Course, this is all this is "just Carlyle being Carlyle." They do -- after all -- have to think of "what's good for the country" every single day.

But, on one front at least, what is good for Carlyle isn't good for the country. It's The UAE itself and its appalling record on treatment of guest workers and on human rights in general. That's why the UAE pumps money into Bush campaigns and GOP coffers -- to improve its image in the US. Their human rights record is also why The UAE keeps itself beneath the radar screens in the Western press. At least long enough to engineer a ports deal.

Now Joshua Holland is telling us that the Dubai Ports deal is also a way for WTO trade rules to apply to services and supercede national law in service-intensive countries like the US and Japan. Don't the Japanese have enough to worry about -- like Godzilla fighting Mothra in a Dubai-operated port?

So just where does the "protecting our ports from terrorism" come in? If anything, Dubai Ports will be looking to get itself around safety requirements, environmental laws, and collective bargaining rights for employees -- in addition to doing the absolute minimum in port security for the not-so-minimum in public funding. After all, Dubai Ports is to be as much a "WTO precedent setter" as it is to be a service provider.

And any time the US government orders them to do something in the name of port security -- like issue ID badges and make security checks of same on US piers -- Dubai Ports can always go to the WTO and have the requirement overruled.

By the way, when US law is no longer the law of the land -- the terrorists win.

Feel safer now? I like Joshua Holland but there are times when even he sounds a bit capricious. Having the WTO as The New World Order governing the entire planet is NOT an inevitability.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]