Thursday, February 23, 2006

Arab Company, White House Had Secret Deal - Yahoo! News
And this surprises you?

WASHINGTON - Under a secretive agreement with the Bush administration, a company in the United Arab Emirates promised to cooperate with U.S. investigations as a condition of its takeover of operations at six major American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

The U.S. government chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.

In approving the $6.8 billion purchase, the administration chose not to require state-owned Dubai Ports World to keep copies of its business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to orders by American courts. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate requests by the government.

Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.

Don't be silly. If we had access to their business records, we might expect them to pay taxes, or something.

Dubai Ports agreed to give up records on demand about "foreign operational direction" of its business at the U.S. ports, according to the documents. Those records broadly include details about the design, maintenance or operation of ports and equipment. It also pledged to continue participating in programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials.

"They're not lax but they're not draconian," said James Lewis, a former U.S. official who worked on such agreements. If White House officials negotiating the deal had predicted the firestorm of criticism over it, "they might have made them sound harder."

But they probably wouldn't have enforced the provisions, anyway.

Rep. Peter King of New York, the Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said the conditions are evidence the Bush administration was concerned about security. "There is a very serious question as to why the records are not going to be maintained on American soil subject to American jurisdiction," King said.

Another critic, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., added: "These new revelations ask more questions than they answer."

Dubai Port's top American executive, chief operating officer Edward H. Bilkey, said he will work in Washington to persuade skeptical lawmakers they should endorse the deal; several Senate oversight hearings already are scheduled.

Oh great, the Senate to the rescue with more hearings! Those have certainly been effective. Might as well start changing the names on the ports right now and move in.

Under the deal, the government asked Dubai Ports to operate American seaports with existing U.S. managers "to the extent possible." The company promised to take "all reasonable steps" to assist the Homeland Security Department.

It said Dubai Ports must retain paperwork "in the normal course of business" but did not specify a time period or require corporate records to be housed in the United States. Outside experts said stricter provisions are routine in other industries.

Foreign communications companies with American customers are commonly required to store business records in the United States. A senior U.S. official said the Bush administration considers shipping manifests less sensitive. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the confidential nature of the agreement.

So, who deems whether a "step" is reasonable when it comes to assisting Homeland Security? And it's curious that we have "no-fly" lists and secret domestic surveillance, but this administration doesn't care about the tons of unchecked crap that gets shipped in everyday?

Not only does the deal sound like a security disaster waiting to happen, we won't even have access to their records to find out if they are evading taxes. Or a ship's manifest after it blows up. Smart move there, boys.

It's all about the money, honey.

One thing that gives me pause- Tom DeLay is against this. I hate to be on the side of the Bugman. And Bill Frist, too. Makes me feel all icky and dirty.

Damn you, George Bush.