The UAE Secrecy Myth
The UAE Secrecy Myth
The Bush administration has insisted that the law requires all information about the review of the United Arab Emirates port deal to be kept secret. State Department spokesperson Adam Ereli:
All departments are called upon to bring to the table derogatory information that they may have that would bear on the decisions of the committee. I would say that the deliberations are confidential so there’s basically not much I can share with you about what the specific deliberations were.
Jim Flurio, the co-sponsor of the law that created the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States – the panel that reviewed the Dubai port deal – said, under the law, most information could be made public:
In an interview, Florio said he did not like how application of the 17-year-old law had evolved, particularly the confidential nature of the CFIUS deliberations. “The confidentiality was designed to protect trade secrets. It was not designed to protect the deliberations and evaluations” of the government, he said. “The deliberations of this committee should be public and Congress should be engaged.”
Instead, he said the Republican Congress “has gone brain dead on oversight.”
In other words, there is no legal reason why the vast majority of the deliberations and evaluations of the UAE port deal could not be made available to the public and Congress. (That goes for the 30-day review that has already been conducted and the 45-day investigation to come.)
If this information establishes that there is no security risk associated with the deal, as the administration insists, it would be in their interest to do so.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
In regard to this story, one thing that I am unclear on is who specifically from CFIUS approved this deal? Has that information been provided yet?
I ask only because everyone from bush through rummy have claimed that they did not know about it when it was approved, even though they support it completely.
March 1st, 2006 at 2:11 pmIt’s a multiagency review. My understanding is that most secretaries delegated their authority. The vote approve was unanimous.
March 1st, 2006 at 2:12 pm“Brain-dead congress”?
I think a certain senator might need to get involved.
March 1st, 2006 at 2:15 pmJudd,
The Department of Homeland Security was against this deal and was made to approve it. That is not unanimous.
March 1st, 2006 at 2:15 pmThe Coast Guard was concerned about the deal, too.
March 1st, 2006 at 2:17 pmNot to mention that they only held ( 1 ), that’s ONE meeting.
March 1st, 2006 at 2:17 pmYeah, I know. I wasn’t saying there weren’t concerns, I was just explaining the process. The vote was unanimous.
March 1st, 2006 at 2:18 pmThis confirms what we knew all along: they are hiding something.
March 1st, 2006 at 2:29 pmit seems like this administration is doing a really bad job of trying to hide their greed
March 1st, 2006 at 2:31 pmSecret from who?..the American public?…this is all B.S.
March 1st, 2006 at 2:35 pmJudd,
I understand, but isn’t there a record that states clearly and specifically who provided the “vote” for the various agencies? Or was this done by a show of hands?
March 1st, 2006 at 2:35 pmwhat, and break their veil of secrecy? this administration doesn’t want to spoil its record…
March 1st, 2006 at 2:36 pmI’m not sure, that’s why they should make the deliberations public, as I argue in this post.
March 1st, 2006 at 2:36 pmJudd,
I see, thanks for the response. Are you aware of anyone filing an FOIA request on this specific information?
March 1st, 2006 at 2:43 pmThe media just parrots that it’s all confidential. They don’t even bother to check their facts anymore. Pathetic.
March 1st, 2006 at 2:44 pmThe locals are surley. Judd shows up and they even want to badger him.
We all know that serveral Departments/Agencies had concerns. We also all know that buscho told them to shove their concerns where the sun don’t shine, get in line & support bushco on this, no matter what.
So, you’re both right. Now, why the Coast Guard or any other Agency feels they need to toe someone else’s line… probably worried about their budget. You know bushco would clobber them. It isn’t about security or efficacy. It’s about making bushco look good.
Duh!
March 1st, 2006 at 2:46 pmThe Department of Homeland Security was against this deal and was made to approve it. That is not unanimous.
Comment by Spudge_Boy — March 1, 2006 @ 2:15 pm
Spudge by homeland security, if you mean the people in the coast guard, I’ll agree but if you mean Chertoff who runs HS, I’d have to disagree. The situation is similar to the DOJ, on Georgia’s new voting ID law. The lawyers in the civil rights division were against it, but were overruled by Gonzo. The Administration can say everybody is for it, because their political lap dogs, in each department, keep overruling the people in these departments, who are competent, and actually know what they are talking about. The competent government employees with years of experience are overruled for political purposes.
March 1st, 2006 at 2:50 pmI tend to agree with Kevin Drum over at the Washington Monthly that the Dubai port deal is not necessarily the grave and gathering security risk its opponents decry. (The shocking political tone-deafness is another matter altogether.) But it certainly smells bad, in no small part because of the cronyism and close ties the Bush White House – and family -have to Dubai Ports World and the government of the UAE.
For the details, see:
March 1st, 2006 at 2:57 pm“Bush, Dubai and the Ties That Bind.”
It’s a secret because it is treason! Aid and comfort to the enemy! Why do they hate America so much? Hire Americans, or do they think we are all stupid? We did elect them, or in some cases had the courts appoint them, so I guess they must think Americans are too dumb to notice when the President is giving the keys to our most vital ports to KNOWN supporters of Terror and home to two of the most infamous terrorists of all. They attacked us! It’s like asking the Soviets to manage our nuclear weapons programs.
March 1st, 2006 at 2:58 pmHello. I am new here. What is a ‘troll’? What is a ‘prog’?
March 1st, 2006 at 2:59 pmThank you.
Clif,
Yahoo! News
February 25, 2006
Homeland Security Objected to Ports Deal
Doesn’t protest mena the same thing as dissent?
Seems like it means the same thing to me.
Oh wait, this IS about security and not liberals being bigotted against Arabs.
In a court case, this would be called a “hung jury” in Bushlandia, it is called “twist their arms until they agree.”
March 1st, 2006 at 3:04 pm#20
A “troll” is a person who is someone who comes here to just stir up the dust and create contraversy.
A “prog” is a progressive.
March 1st, 2006 at 3:15 pm#21 Spudge I understand that what I was saying the competent employees of homeland security , like the Coast Guard did oppose the deal, but Bush got Chertoff to overrule and Classify their objections to cover their collective asses. This happens in every department of the administration. I agree with your post and was pointing out how the Homeland security department could be against the deal, by having people who know actually look at the problems of port security, and oppose the deal for it, before they are for the deal, a political decision made by a political appointee, for the benefit of the President
March 1st, 2006 at 3:16 pmClif,
DO you mean like the intelligence guys that put together the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing that said “bin Laden determined to attack inside the US”?
Or do you mean the FEMA managers calling for help during Katrina and got none, while Bush ate cake with McCain And “played” guitar in San Diego.
Or do you mean all the people saying that Hamas had a good chance of winning the election while Rice said “Who woulda thunk it”
Or do you mean……
The list goes on and on and on.
March 1st, 2006 at 3:21 pmYes and the military commanders who called for more troops to actually win the battle and the peace in Iraq,
or Bremer who says he asked for more troops in 2003,
and the Army war college study that said without good planning the post war occupation was going to become a quagmire,
or the NASA scientists being overruled by a 24 year old political appointee who lied on his resume to get the political appointment in the first place…..
March 1st, 2006 at 3:29 pmThis secrecy thing is to provide cover for the rank and I mean Rank and file GOP who know what’s going on but it is in their best interest to keep a low cover and let The President take all the flak. He just turns around and says too bad this is Foreign policy, we are at War, and this is necessary. he runs the country like a CEO, sorta like Ken Lay. “Hey I can’t be bothered with Every detail.” I swear the best metaphor I can come up with is he is Toonces the Cat. Off the cliff we go…
March 1st, 2006 at 3:38 pmThose Dubai businessmen have lots going on all of the place:
Feb.24,2005:
“Palestinians do not welcome the controversial offer of a Dubai-based property magnate to buy up all the properties that Israeli settlers vacate in Gaza later this year as it would amount to recognizing Israel. Asked about the proposal of Mohammad Ali Al Abbar, the Director-General of the Dubai Department of Economic Development and Chairman of Emaar Properties, an Israeli Arab lawmaker dubbed it as an attempt to transform Palestine into a huge real estate project.
“Palestine is not a real estate project,†Knesset member Mohammed Barakeh said in Tuesday.
Israel’s second television channel reported that Abbar had offered $56 million for homes at the Gush Katif settlement bloc in the southern Gaza Strip.
Abbar’s secret visit to the Occupied Territories last week and his alleged meetings with senior Israeli leaders also angered many in the Arab region.
The London-based Elaph web site quoted Israeli sources as saying that Abbar had met secretly with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. He is also believed to have had talks with Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres after briefly meeting Sharon in the first publicly reported meeting between officials from the two countries, which have no diplomatic relations.
Many people see the visit of Mr. Abbar and his proposal as out of step in such a political mix and without a peaceful solution to the Palestinian issue. Just what exactly the purchase of purchasing illegal built settlements mean , is it to reward the government of Israel. What about establishing Emaar Palestine will achieve? Palestine is not Dubai, as a lot of corruption are spread and most properly that any financial or economic development will be wasted , just like the billion of Euro spent the EU which has gone into the pocket of Yasser Arafat and his aids of Ministers.”
http://www.desert-voice.net/news_from_uae.htm
March 1st, 2006 at 3:42 pm“all over the place” oops
March 1st, 2006 at 3:43 pmThe UAE deal is a routine occurrence, with a standard protocol, 45 day review etc. The Bush administration just went completely berserk over this with their secrecy. Kind of like the Cheney shooting fiasco.
http://www.sunstateactivist.org/
A comprehensive database of progressive news, views, and events.
http://www.lcoliberal.blogspot.com
March 1st, 2006 at 3:51 pmProgressive commentary on the issues that really matter
“I tend to agree with Kevin Drum over at the Washington Monthly that the Dubai port deal is not necessarily the grave and gathering security risk its opponents decry.”
Hilarious. When Dubai PW takes over the terminals, they and their employees will learn intimate details of our port security.
Kevin Drum wants to add this to his list of laydowns, that’s his right.
THIS IS A DEAL FOR CARLYLE. It is rotten through the core.
March 1st, 2006 at 3:54 pmBush friend Evans explanation might offer some insite
‘Economic Security is National Security’
aka War for Oil
March 1st, 2006 at 4:09 pmThere was NOT a 45 day review. That is what DPW has agreed to now.
March 1st, 2006 at 4:38 pmDPW was DPI before it became DPW, and DPI was in charge of the port in Aden where the USS Cole was bombed:
http://www.worldpress.o rg/Mideast/ 2162.cfm
http:// http://www.itp.net/ business/news/ details.php? id=19332& category=arabian business
“Dubai Ports World (DPW), owned by the emirate’s government, fired the first shot when it made a bid of US$5.91 billion in November 2005. However, Singapore’s PSA has hit back, approaching P&O with a conditional counter offer of US$6.21 billion. A formal offer could be submitted within the next few days.
PSA’s conditions were that it be allowed to complete satisfactory due diligence, that its board give final approval, that P&O’s directors withdraw their recommendation of the DPW offer, and that P&O’s pension trustees approve the offer.
PSA has operations in 11 countries and is the world’s second-largest ports group. By contrast, DPW was formed as recently as September with the amalgamation of the Dubai Ports Authority and DPI Terminals. “
March 1st, 2006 at 5:11 pmI’ve been lurking for a while, but just had to join this discussion, so I’m new here.
The reasonable objection to the DPW deal is security, plain and simple. “Racism” is just a red herring to deflect attention from the administration’s obsession with secrecy and their attitude that Bush and his handlers know best. And, oh yeah, it’s a BAD IDEA.
The AP ran a story today “Lawmakers Vow Not to Force Quick Port Vote” Towards the end of the story is a very interesting statement by DPW’s Ed Bilky:
Well maybe DPW can’t afford for anything to go wrong, but al Qaeda would love to do anything that would significantly disrupt business at major East Coast ports.
We currently inspect about 5% of containers arriving at our ports. Giving a country that is a known conduit for al Qaeda finances the control of our ports is like putting the monkeys in charge of the bananna boat. Only worse.
March 1st, 2006 at 5:38 pm[...] from Judd Legum ThinkProgress.org The Bush administration claims it can’t reveal any details about the evaluation of the UAE port deal because the law requires all deliberations to be confidential. The co-author of the law has spoken up and says that’s not true. President Bush claims the review showed their were no security implications. He should make the deliberations and evaluations public and prove it. – Judd [...]
March 1st, 2006 at 5:40 pmI still wonder what longtime friend to the Bush family (and many wealthy Arabs) James Bath has to do with this.
March 1st, 2006 at 5:41 pmIt’s absolutely FABULOUS to see Bushiva so desperate to get his hands on that 50 pieces of silver…
…look at his rodent-like eyes as he pounds home the point that UAE is our stauchest ally in their trumped up “war on terror”…
…the TREASONOUS bast*rd looks like he’s going to go ballistic if he doesn’t get his way…
…that sombich is a TRAITOR if ever there was one…
…has anybody seen that other TREASONOUS a*shole L’il Dick lately?
…guess they’re hiding him at the undisclosed location ’til that 18% approval rating inches up to at least 20…
…maybe he’s ducking “the ides of March”…
March 1st, 2006 at 6:09 pmWho are the ones who keep telling us that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about, anyway?
March 1st, 2006 at 7:53 pmOf course the Corruption Element within our Federal Government will want to keep everything about this sale QUIET.
I was in a family for more than 26 years who joined Organized Crime, however this wasn’t any ordinary Crime System. They considered it the World’s Largest Crime System.
Within the Criminal System, Mandarin is considered a major Corruption Laundromat.
Mandarin Oriental Group
http://www.mandarinoriental.com/hotel/520000016.asp
The Tribune wrote an article not long ago that almost immediately after being placed on the internet in the news area, was BLOCKED. Check it out for yourself!
Just who is building Mandarin?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0510020321oct02,1,4790705.story?coll=chi-news-hed
But the real concern you need to have is that the owner of Dubai is the same owner of Mandarin. Check this out!
Look Who’s Talking
http://www.modernagent.com/x/modernagent/visitor/resources/editorial.cds?n=6039
Frankly, back in the early 1990’s when I was told in great detail about this by the family, it was considered to be a mammoth sized Laundromat for the Federal area. But with more than 10 years later, I’m certain many other areas have joined in as well. The reader would be wise to investigate who are the INVESTORS in Mandarin Group and you better have your seat belt fastened first!
There are other Laundromats but Mandarin is by far the Worlds Largest! I’m surprised the news hasn’t checked into where the money goes? In order to steal money a theif has to first clean it before they can use it. Small time operators use single operators to wash their money, but major sized operations require huge Corporations to wash their money. Mandarin is by far the biggest.
If you don’t believe me, check it out for yourself! I can also tell you of a few others too.
March 1st, 2006 at 8:55 pmThe deliberations are being kept under wraps because the Bush administration doesn’t want anyone in Congress or us to find out what is really behind the UAE port deal.
Well, we already know what a plum deal this will be for the UAE, and any al Qaeda terrorists lurking in the shadows who will try to exploit it, but what does the United States get out of the deal???
You know that Bush wouldn’t be so adamant about this deal unless something very important was at stake, something that the Bush administration desperately wants from the UAE.
And the only thing I see that makes the UAE so important is the UAE’s strategic location beside the Strait of Hormuz, through which much of the world’s oil passes.
So, if I were a responsible, intelligent member of Congress, I’d immediately subpoenae the U.S. General in charge of U.S. forces over in the United Arab Emirates to compel him to appear before Congress…and get some answers.
Are any unusual war preparations underway in the UAE under the orders of Donald Rumsfeld? (And when I mean unusual, I mean beyond what U.S. forces are currently doing in the UAE regarding air support for our forces on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan).
Is there a timetable in place, from Rumsfeld, to launch an attack across the Strait of Hormuz, to establish a beachhead on the Iranian side of the strait? (In other words, have amphibious assault landing craft been deployed to the UAE. And have training exercises been conducted in northern UAE, which has perfect flat terrain beside the Persian Gulf, and is close to the Strait of Hormuz, across from Iran?)
Maybe my suspicions are groundless.
But I say, call the generals in charge over there home and have them testify under oath before Congress…before it is too late to stop the madmen in the White House. Because war with Iran will make Bush’s Iraq War and Bush’s Hurricane Katrina disaster look like childs play.
March 1st, 2006 at 10:12 pmThe Bush Regime never intended for the UAE takeover of our East Coast ports to ever be revealed, or at least NOT until after “Dubai Ports World” was already running the ports! Somebody leaked the pending deal to the press before it was put into operation, so that caused Bush to make up a story of his not knowing about it > lol. The deal was supposed to be a SECRET!
March 1st, 2006 at 11:57 pmJay if they can’t run a covert operation in washington, how can they ever expect us to believe they stand a chance in the big wide world……
March 2nd, 2006 at 4:58 am