Conservative Critics Say Ports Deal Opens U.S. to Terrorist Infiltration
by Jody Brown and Chad Groening
February 23, 2006
(AgapePress) - - Two conservative observers say despite White House assurances over safety concerns in permitting several major U.S. ports to be managed by a Middle Eastern company, the fact that the company is based in that part of the world makes it more vulnerable to penetration by terrorists -- and ultimately puts those ports at risk.The White House claims President Bush was not aware until after the fact that United Arab Emirates-owned Dubai Ports World had been allowed to purchase a British-based port management group, thereby permitting that company to assume management of cargo operations in six major U.S. ports: New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, and New Orleans. Despite criticism from both sides of the aisle, the Bush administration is defending the decision, with the president threatening to veto any act of Congress to block the deal.
Gary Bauer of American Values expects the president may have to follow through on that threat. "My sense is that he may have to use that veto because virtually the entire Republican leadership has come out in opposition or is demanding that there be a more thorough investigation," he says. "That sounds reasonable to me."
But Bauer says he is sincerely troubled that the president may not be getting all the information he needs to avoid controversy that is unnecessary. "How could the White House be surprised by the furor caused by [this] announcement?" he wonders. "[And] why is the president now in a position of risking a showdown with his own party on an issue of national security?"
Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, pretty much echoes Bauer's concerns, saying he believes the president is making a serious mistake in allowing the deal to go stand. The former Defense Department official during the Ronald Reagan era does not think it is in the nation's best interests to the UAE-owned company to handle operations at the ports. For one thing, says Gaffney, the company can hire anybody they choose to work at the security-sensitive facilities -- including "sleepers" and "people who are agents."
"Secondly, you have cargo coming through those facilities that [those employees] may be able to conceal or help get through the inspection process," the security expert offers. In addition, he says, the port manager has to be "in the know" on port security -- "and to the extent that people may be interested in exploiting the vulnerabilities of our port security plans, knowing what they are is something that could be very problematic indeed," Gaffney adds.
He says bluntly that the United Arab Emirates is not a country that America should trust in an area so critical to national security. "This transaction involving a company owned by the government of a country that was instrumental to the planning and even the financing of the 9-11 attacks, is not the kind of company we want managing and being responsible for some of the most sensitive facilities in this country -- namely, key commercial and military seaports."
As one unidentified security official in the U.S. government told the Washington Times, allowing a Middle Eastern company to manage key ports "would be like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse."
Gaffney believes that just as he did with his ill-fated nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, President Bush should cut his losses and pull the plug on the Dubai Ports business deal.
