 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Doll
Commander
Joined: 04 Jul 2005
Posts: 339
Location: The Beltway
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:06 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
As I stated earlier I do not approve of the UAE deal. It would most likely not be in good taste to post why here out of respect for this forums protocol.
Out of repect to this forum and its policies I will not post my reasons here. However, having said that, if any of you are interested in knowing why I believe the way I do you are welcome to read todays post at my blog.
Not easy to not go along with the popular consensus
_________________
The HILL Chronicles
Soldiers' Angels
"Wednesday Hero - Google It!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kimberly
PO2
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 377
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Schadow wrote: | | kimberly wrote: | Hi Schadow,
I wish I were as optimistic as you! I wish I could believe that the results of that poll meant that a huge majority of folks had returned to caring about terrorism. Perhaps they have, though I figure the majority, including the leadership on both sides, are either overreacting out of sheer ignorance of the facts or want to send the message, Port Management for Sale, Arab Countries Need Not Apply. On the political side, however, I'm afraid that based on these poll numbers, significant damage has been done, damage that may be irreparable regardless of whether or not a 45 day reassessment takes place, whether or not Bush ultimately nixs the deal, or whether or not Dubai gracefully bows out. IMO, should there be long-term ramifications that negatively impact the elections, allow for impeachment hearings, and this country ends up with a POTUS in '08 with an agenda similar to Kerry, there will be no end to my anger toward those from the right who have cut and run on this issue. I have no reason to suddenly withdraw the trust that GWB as earned where security counts. In this instance, it is the knee jerk overreaction that may cost us dearly politically. |
Hi, Kimberly -
Please believe me when I say that I share your concerns. There are two things at work here: The substance - should DPW get the contract for the work? And, the process - was the selection carried out in a sound manner and properly announced?
As for the substance, I believe that the selection of DPW was a sound one based on the company's expertise; the fact that our experience using their facilities in the Emirates has been outstanding; there are no American companies qualified to handle large port operations; and the loyalty of the UAE has been demonstrated. (They haven't used the F-16s that Clinton sold them against us anyway!)
The process, on the other hand, leaves much to be desired. The selection of foreign entities to operate in the US has become a largely routine process buried deep within the bureaucracy. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFUS) has operated below the radar with little White House involvement and has done good work, including this instance. The problem, of course is the emergence of the 'fighting word', "Arab", in this case.
The Dems leapt upon this and immediately created a giant flap. The President's response to the flap was less than wise, threatening vetoes of bills to undo the deal, etc. Even my conservative senators, Sessions and Shelby, have joined the feeding frenzy. In their cases, the concern is about national security. For most of the rest, the reason is the coming elections.
Now, a new review is being set up and hopefully calmer heads will prevail, leading either to rejection or endorsement of the deal. The flap certainly has not enhanced Republican chances to retain the House but, hopefully, the damage will turn out to be minimal. In the meantime, I'm not reading polls! Responses to polls reflect what people have been told by the MSM in the last few hours and we know what that means.
Schadow |
Thanks for the reply Schadow. I certainly agree with you about the polls! It's all in the way the questions are worded and from what I hear, they are designed to solicit the answer the 'buyer' is looking for. That being said, a couple of more thoughts on the subject. I would love to know when and who initiated the outcry over this? Was it a dem? Were they in a position of 'understanding', familiar with the process, familiar with past agreements, such as the fact that there are currently 9 ports on the east and west coasts being operated by the Saudi government, yet only now are sounding the horn for political purposes? If you or anyone else has looked into this, please post.
As the day goes on, it seems to me that Schumer and Clinton have given hints that regardless of the outcome of the 45 day 'redo', they will lead the way for the dems to still not accept it and I suspect they will spend the next 45 days bashing it. I also hear that the 45 day 'redo' is handled and decided by the same group of people who handled it first go around and and folks like Schumer and Clinton don't really have a say so anyway. Perhaps realizing that the cries over 'security' are really 'political' is why Bush has remained adamant in not backing down. In the meantime, apparently Schumer is asking that some kind of legislation be passed to prevent these types of deals in the future without congressional approval. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Schadow
Vice Admiral
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Doll wrote: | As I stated earlier I do not approve of the UAE deal. It would most likely not be in good taste to post why here out of respect for this forums protocol.
Out of repect to this forum and its policies I will not post my reasons here. However, having said that, if any of you are interested in knowing why I believe the way I do you are welcome to read todays post at my blog. |
I read your blog post. Your opinion, apparently based on experience, is well stated. Differences of opinion - and love - make the world go 'round. 
Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LewWaters
Admin
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 4042
Location: Washington State
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Rush did a pretty good monologue today on just how long this story has been known. If you don't know, he is in full support of it.
Port Outrage Was Manipulated |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joeshero
Commander
Joined: 30 Aug 2004
Posts: 321
Location: Midwest
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kimberly wrote: |
Hi Schadow,
I wish I were as optimistic as you! I wish I could believe that the results of that poll meant that a huge majority of folks had returned to caring about terrorism. Perhaps they have, though I figure the majority, including the leadership on both sides, are either overreacting out of sheer ignorance of the facts or want to send the message, Port Management for Sale, Arab Countries Need Not Apply. On the political side, however, I'm afraid that based on these poll numbers, significant damage has been done, damage that may be irreparable regardless of whether or not a 45 day reassessment takes place, whether or not Bush ultimately nixs the deal, or whether or not Dubai gracefully bows out. IMO, should there be long-term ramifications that negatively impact the elections, allow for impeachment hearings, and this country ends up with a POTUS in '08 with an agenda similar to Kerry, there will be no end to my anger toward those from the right who have cut and run on this issue. I have no reason to suddenly withdraw the trust that GWB as earned where security counts. In this instance, it is the knee jerk overreaction that may cost us dearly politically. |
Agree. The Republican Party has suffered significant damage regardles how this controversy will end up. The Bush's "my way or highway" approach on this matter is just as bad as the "confused" Democrats on national security.
No matter what Republican pundits are preaching about this controversy, the folks cannot just swallow the idea that UEA company will control US vital ports. It is simply too much.
_________________
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Army_(Ret)
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 06 Aug 2004
Posts: 108
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 4:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Given that basically the only noticeable difference to the workers of these ports will be the signatures on the paychecks; I don't personally have any reservations about who should own the ports.
The dockworkers will not suddenly change headgear (they will keep their jobs) and the Coast Guard will wear the same uniforms.
If Al Qaeda is connected to the UAE, I don't see where it will affect the Port's operations any more than Shoe bomber Richard Reid (British citizen) or Johnny Walker Lindh (American citizen) picked up at an Al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan would affect operations with ourselves or Great Britian.
It's much easier to name off countries around the world who knowingly or unknowingly harbor terrorists than who do not. I'm not even sure about the continent of Anarctica. Maybe the North Polar region doesn't have any, but no bets here with Canada's past security habits.
Bottom line is, Bush is a lame duck, 2006 is fast approaching, 2008 is around the corner and many Republican office holders are jumping on the camera bandwagon, and all of the Democrats which have, for the first time in 4 years, acknowledged we have an enemy besides the Bush Administration.
Charles Krauthammer summed it up in one sentence the best: Bush warns us about Al-Qaeda, which is a real threat. The Democrats warned us about UAE, which is not, and that's why it's demagoguery.
_________________
Peace is acheived through victory |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Schadow
Vice Admiral
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 4:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Army_(Ret) wrote: | Given that basically the only noticeable difference to the workers of these ports will be the signatures on the paychecks; I don't personally have any reservations about who should own the ports.
The dockworkers will not suddenly change headgear (they will keep their jobs) and the Coast Guard will wear the same uniforms.
If Al Qaeda is connected to the UAE, I don't see where it will affect the Port's operations any more than Shoe bomber Richard Reid (British citizen) or Johnny Walker Lindh (American citizen) picked up at an Al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan would affect operations with ourselves or Great Britian.
It's much easier to name off countries around the world who knowingly or unknowingly harbor terrorists than who do not. I'm not even sure about the continent of Anarctica. Maybe the North Polar region doesn't have any, but no bets here with Canada's past security habits.
Bottom line is, Bush is a lame duck, 2006 is fast approaching, 2008 is around the corner and many Republican office holders are jumping on the camera bandwagon, and all of the Democrats which have, for the first time in 4 years, acknowledged we have an enemy besides the Bush Administration.
Charles Krauthammer summed it up in one sentence the best: Bush warns us about Al-Qaeda, which is a real threat. The Democrats warned us about UAE, which is not, and that's why it's demagoguery. |
Superbly well said, Army!
Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sixdogteam
Seaman
Joined: 06 Aug 2004
Posts: 183
Location: Upper Wabash River Valley
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I understand the reasons why everything I buy at Wal*Mart is made in China. I don't understand why the Chinese need to operate our ports, or the UAE or the UK either, for that matter.
_________________
HHC 212th CAB MMAF RVN '70-'71 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kimberly
PO2
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 377
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LewWaters wrote: | Rush did a pretty good monologue today on just how long this story has been known. If you don't know, he is in full support of it.
Port Outrage Was Manipulated |
thank you. sounds like Rush and I have been having the same doubts about things! the 'sudden' outrage over this just doesn't pass the smell test for me.
Has anyone been keeping track of the number of other 'ISSUES' vs. Bush brough on by the left in the past 6 mo. or year? I would also like to research and make a list. There are so many, I can't begin to remember them all. Seems like one a day/week. The onslaught is relentless, keeping the Reps on the defense and barely able to catch our breath in between them. I don't think this is by accident. IMO |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joeshero
Commander
Joined: 30 Aug 2004
Posts: 321
Location: Midwest
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just for the sake of argument. Suppose Singapore Airlines and Dubai Airlines decide to buy all major US Airlines (note: economically this can be feasible). Will those people supporting the port deal be supporting of the take over?
_________________
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LewWaters
Admin
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 4042
Location: Washington State
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Just for the sake of argument. Suppose Singapore Airlines and Dubai Airlines decide to buy all major US Airlines (note: economically this can be feasible). Will those people supporting the port deal be supporting of the take over? |
The hysteria over this buy out is very misplaced, I feel. At best, this sale will result in top management changes, maybe. Paychecks will come from a different foreign company for the few ports that will have terminals operated by DP World.
As in any business, profit is what is motivating this. The hysteria, other things. DP World has already been shipping containers into the US and had they wished to attack us, they would have done it before this all became such a public spectacle.
Dubai Ports already service most of our War Ships in the Middle East. Why wouldn't they have sunk a few if they desired to join Al Qaeda?
As for the airlines comment. Check the current companies and see just how much they are already inter-owned by International Companies.
Just because a company is Arab Owned doesn't make them terrorist supporters. Companies exist for profit, pure and simple. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Schadow
Vice Admiral
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LewWaters wrote: | | .......The hysteria over this buy out is very misplaced, I feel. ...... |
When Senator Collins' committee recessed today, the C-Span host did an interview with Jayson Ahern, Asst. Commissioner for Customs and Border Protection and Coast Guard RADM Thomas Gilmour.
| Quote: | HOST: Jayson Ahern, ... There are more than 300 ports of entry in the U.S., are they safe?
CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER JAYSON AHERN: I believe they are. Certainly, we're on a path of continuous improvement, but the many layers we've put in place since the 9/11 tragedy I think has strengthened our port security in the United States tremendously.
HOST: Well, walk us through those layers. Since 9/11 what has been put in place?
AHERN: Well, I'd be happy to walk through. I think one of the key concepts we put in post 9/11 was actually forward deploying our officers overseas and beginning our interdiction efforts overseas before they eventually hit the U.S. ports. We want to have our U.S. ports be one of the last lines of defense in the war on terrorism versus one of the first.
We begin with a regulation we put in place over two years ago, the 24-hour rule, where we have the ability to get all the manifest information submitted electronically from the carrier 24 hours in advance of waiting in a foreign port. We then score that for risk at a national targeting center where we have intelligence information and an expert rule based system to score the container shipments for risk before they're even placed on board the vessels.
We also have, 42 foreign ports now have Customs and Border Protection officers there that actually work with host country nation counterparts be it custom authorities in that location or the law enforcement authority that has jurisdiction over the ports. They actually go out and use large scale x-ray systems and radiation detection capabilities to resolve the risk, as well. And then upon arrival in our shores here in the United States, we still have our officers who are trained and highly skilled at doing what they're doing, as well as a considerable amount of technology to include radiation and x-ray containers capabilities at our ports here in the United States as well.
HOST: Admiral Gilmour, explain for us what the Coast Guard's responsibilities are when it comes to port security.
U.S. COAST GUARD REAR ADMIRAL THOMAS GILMOUR: Well, I like to explain it that we have responsibility for the vessels that carry the cargo, and the facilities that house the cargo. And Customs and Border Protection has responsibility for the cargo itself. I think we work very well together and I would just like to say, since 9/11 we have a piece of legislation, the Marine Transportation Security Act, that gives us wide responsibilities to not only provide security for the facilities, but also for all vessels that come into U.S. ports. We get a 96-hour advance notice that provides us with the cargo manifests and with all crew members that we can run through a database. And in addition, as the vessel comes in we track it with automated identification, and through our VTS on its transit through the ports. But we can decide who, with a risk-based matrix, who we board outside the port and who we board once we get into the port.
HOST: Jayson Ahern, explain for us what you think are maybe myths out there in the public or misperceptions or misconceptions that they have.
AHERN: Sure, I think a couple of things. First in the last couple of weeks with the Dubai Ports World transaction here in the United States, one of the things I've seen consistently misrepresented is that this foreign company was going to come in and take over ports and port security. First off, that's not true. Port authorities are still run by state and local and county governments consistent with standards set forth by the United States Coast Guard, and also the companies that would be involved with this transaction are actually purchasing another foreign company that actually runs or leases a terminal within that port. So I think that's one of the first distinctions is making sure that the public understands this is not a foreign company coming in and taking over the United States' ports or running a port or setting security standards. They're merely coming in to lease a terminal within that port, which is just one of the facilities that operates within a port. |
(Emphasis added)
Source: The White House via PowerLine
I'm pretty sure the MSM will not exert themselves to make these very informative points widely available to their readers.
Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
msindependent
Vice Admiral
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 891
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 9:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| i assume that this finally puts to rest the notion that bush is at war with all muslims? the mass hysteria or islamic phobia created by the media and congress is shameful. i can't think of much good this whole affair will create except for perhaps americans will come to realize that alot of our commercial ports have foreign control/management/whatever. (sorry to say, after that they will just tune into american idol and be done with it). is congress going to create a law that no arab country is allowed to operate or trade in the us? no, it would reak havoc with the economy. plus, do we want to become isolationists? believe me, i've toyed with that idea long before this. but, it's never going to happen. wake me when bush starts drowning kittens, i might rally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dcornutt
PO3
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 267
Location: Brooklyn, NY
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
With the little that we know about it..I can find nothing wrong "operationally" with this deal other than the fact that the UAE is at the end of it. In that regard, despite their track record post 9/11 in working with us, there "is" some cause for concern. I do see both sides of this. I'm not for isolationist policies and recognize that we need strategic alliances, trade, etc..in that part of the world. People who are arse deep in business with us...tend to "NOT" want to blow things up. I won't loose any sleep over this if it goes through..and I too think it's been WAY overblown, but If I had my druthers...I'd just tell UAE...thank you for all you've done in regards to the war on terror...but we just can't do this deal right now. That we all hope that the security situation, instability, etc.. will change in the ME/Gulf one day enough that such a deal could be made...and encourage all to continue to work hard to that end. And invite them to sit with us and join us...in "all" of the major international issues that are affecting the security and peace in this world so that the day when such a deal could be made would arrive sooner than later.
In a war...the enemy of my enemy is my friend. We fought with Russia against the Germans. But, that didn't change the realities of 2 countries on divergent courses and how we were both aligning ourselves even as the war came to a close. And I think that was well recognized even at the time. The entire ME/Gulf is like a tossed salad right now...and I don't think anybody knows where some of these things are going to land yet. Alliances being worked hard right now by Russia and China with Iran and Syria? And some of those alliances are "directly" against our interest and even security. Maybe we do need to start forming some of these alliances now to counter and try and influence the outcome of where all that salad lands down the road. But, while we are fighting for this outcome...I'd just be very cautious about who gets close to (or knows operational details about) the hen house. And I just dont' see how it would be possible for the UAE to not know operational, logistical etc..information about our ports..if they own the company that services them and is required to meet those operational procedures. That's just my personal take on it. I see both sides of it. Also, as to an earlier comment in this thread, while I have NO doubts as to where the UK will stand at the end of that road (regardless of business/money deals, etc)....I frankly have NO clue or trust as to where any of thse countries in the ME/Gulf may end up strategically aligned at the end of this road.
I think as long as these concerns and uncertainties etc..are part of the context in which this deal is considered....I won't loose any sleep over it.
But, I agree with doll...that it's up to the President and the WH to address this...and speak to those concerns in that context. And that is going to have to be more than just "trust me". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
becca1223
PO3
Joined: 23 Aug 2004
Posts: 293
Location: Colonial Heights, VA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | March 01, 2006, 7:41 a.m.
Hamas More Dont We Know?
Is the UAE guilty of providing material support to terrorism since 9/11?
by Andrew C. McCarthy
The $8 billion deal to turn over commercial shipping operations at major American ports to Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, continues to stoke controversy. The Bush administration and other supporters of the deal insist that, despite a history of facilitating al Qaeda including what the 9/11 Commission described as contacts between high-regime officials and Osama bin Laden himself the UAE is a "good friend" and a valuable ally in the war on terror.
Nevertheless, it has become necessary to ask whether, even now, the UAE is in felony violation of the 1996 law that has become the cornerstone of U.S. counterterrorism enforcement. Is the UAE providing material support to Hamas, a specially designated terrorist organization?
Any American citizen doing such a thing would be sent to prison. Any American company doing it would surely be convicted and put out of business and its principals liable for prosecution and imprisonment.
Obviously, the UAE cannot be prosecuted criminally; it has diplomatic immunity. But if it is transgressing our fundamental antiterror law, in the middle of a war on terror, would it be asking too much to insist that it not be rewarded with a profitable commercial deal that would call for it to be read into part of the strategy for our border enforcement?
THE BUSH DOCTRINE
Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
Those were the words President Bush spoke with stirring moral clarity on September 20, 2001, just days after Islamic terrorists annihilated nearly 3000 innocent Americans in suicide hijacking attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. This directive, the Bush Doctrine, was echoed in the National Security Strategy of the United States, promulgated by the White House near the first anniversary of 9/11. It proclaims:
The United States of America is fighting a war against terrorists of global reach. The enemy is not a single political regime or person or religion or ideology. The enemy is terrorism premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against innocents.
In many regions, legitimate grievances prevent the emergence of a lasting peace. Such grievances deserve to be, and must be, addressed within a political process. But no cause justifies terror. The United States will make no concessions to terrorist demands and strike no deals with them. We make no distinction between terrorists and those who knowingly harbor or provide aid to them. [Emphasis supplied.]
At a minimum the Bush Doctrine necessarily means a country supporting terrorist organizations cannot be considered a reliable ally in the war on terror.
In 1996, as part of a major overhaul in counterterrorism law, Congress enacted the material support statutes. (Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 2339B is the provision germane for present purposes.) The law states, in pertinent part:
Whoever, within the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
MATERIAL SUPPORT TO HAMAS AND PIJ?
The United States government officially designated Hamas a foreign terrorist organization in 1995, and reaffirmed the designation in 1997, following the aforementioned overhaul of counterterror law.
Formed in 1987 as an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas (whose name is derived from Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyya, meaning the "Islamic Resistance Movement") is incorrigibly dedicated to the destruction of Israel. To this day, its charter states: "the purpose of HAMAS is to create an Islamic Palestinian state throughout Israel by eliminating the State of Israel through violent jihad." Hamas is responsible for innumerable terrorist attacks and murders. Its recent electoral triumph in the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, far from inducing it to foreswear this deadly posture, appears only to have emboldened it.
Consequently, several people and entities have been indicted in the United States for providing material support to Hamas, as well as related crimes. In announcing one such indictment in 2004, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft was plainspoken about the government's position: "Today, terrorists have lost yet another source of financing and support for their bombs and bloodshed. Our record on terrorist financing is clear: We will hunt down the suppliers of terrorist blood money. We will shut down these sources, and we will ensure that both terrorists and their financiers meet the full justice of the United States of America."
Is the UAE a source of support for Hamas? It certainly appears to be. In an important article in FrontPage Magazine last Friday (February 24), analysts Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen describe extensive strands of UAE funding for the terror organization. Indeed, as they observe:
On July 27, 2005, the Palestinian Information Center carried a public HAMAS statement thanking the UAE for it's "unstinting support." The statement said: "We highly appreciate his highness Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nahyan (UAE president) in particular and the UAE people and government in general for their limitless support...that contributed more to consolidating our people's resoluteness in the face of the Israeli occupation".
The HAMAS statement continued: "the sisterly UAE had... never hesitated in providing aid for our Mujahid people pertaining to rebuilding their houses demolished by the [Israeli military] ... The UAE also spared no effort to offer financial and material aids to the Palestinian charitable societies."
Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan, the father of the current UAE president, is described as having been an ardent benefactor of Hamas as well as another U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), right up until his death in 2004 i.e., three years after 9/11, the point at which the Bush administration maintains that the UAE became staunchly antiterrorist.
The UAE, moreover, continues to operate an ostensibly "charitable" entity, Human Appeal International, which is alleged to fund the terrorist activities of Hamas and PIJ by routing thousands upon thousands of dollars through the Palestinian Red Crescent Organization, whose branches in the Palestinian territories are controlled by Hamas. The terror organization is said then to transfer the money to purported charities which are actually fronts for Hamas's dirty work. As Ehrenfeld and Lappen elaborate, the UAE has a "compensation" plan for the Palestinian intifada. In 2001, this plan is said to have "included $3,000 for every Palestinian shaheed [i.e., "martyr" or suicide bomber], $2,000 for his family, $1,500 for those detained by Israel, $1,200 for each orphan. In addition, families of those terrorists whose homes Israel demolished each received $10,000."
Back in October 2005, moreover, the Palestinian Authority broke ground on a new town to be known as "Sheikh Khalifa City," in honor of the UAE president, who has ponied up $100 million for the project. As an Israeli news service reports: "The new town will not be used to ease the housing crisis in the PA's refugee camps, but will rather house relatives of those killed in the years of violence against Israel, other casualties such as the wounded and arrested, and families whose homes were razed during the war."
Meanwhile, America's premier expert on Islamic terrorism, Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, recently told MSNBC's Rita Cosby that "Hamas couriers as late as last year ... were sent to the West Bank or Gaza [who] came in with UAE cash. So there is still a problem of terrorist supporting operations."
DRAWING CONCLUSIONS FROM THE UAE'S MIXED RECORD
It cannot be gainsaid that the UAE was an al Qaeda booster before 9/11. Nor should it be minimized that, ever since, the country has vastly improved, giving valuable assistance to our military overseas. Of course, on the latter score, it is worth noting that the port deal aside a good relationship with the U.S. is where the UAE's interests lie. Its hospitality to American forces and its billions in purchases of American arms are precious insurance for a tiny autocracy that has sometimes tense relations with menacing Iran. Still, proponents of the ports deal understandably emphasize that the UAE's strides are a welcome development. It is one we should cultivate to the extent we can do so without compromising core principles.
But that means not at the expense of making a mockery of our laws particularly the laws essential to our security. The ports transaction will be under review for the next 45 days. That probe must include an assessment of the UAE's ties to Hamas and PIJ.
If there is to be anything left of the Bush Doctrine, the United States cannot allow a country in violation of our counterterrorism laws to play a critical role in admitting, storing and transferring shipments into our country. Nor can we abide a lucrative financial arrangement for a country that uses its wealth to underwrite organizations our law designates as terrorists.
Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
