Dubai Ports deal broke law, Shelby says

[PhilipShore]

Birmingham New
Birmingham News
Dubai Ports deal broke law, Shelby says
March 03, 2006

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1141381481204040.xml&coll=2

WASHINGTON - Government officials broke the law when they agreed to let a United Arab Emirates-owned company operate terminals at major American ports without doing a more extended review of the national security implications, U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby said Thursday.

"It's my interpretation that the Byrd Amendment is pretty clear, that if you look at the legislative history, they certainly didn't follow the law that I thought they should have," Shelby, R-Ala., said in an interview after a congressional hearing on the Dubai Ports World deal. He referred to the 1992 law that requires extra national security review of some foreign investments.

Shelby and others are planning legislation to tighten the government's review of major foreign investments in the United States by giving Congress more notice of the transactions before they are complete.

[salin]

1. So Sen. WhatShelby, what is the point of "further review" and "notifying

Congress" IF: the officials in charge (as is indicated in this article) decide that "all concerns were met in the first review" (even though Rep King, after briefed by WH said it was clear that there was NO study/review of possible national security concerns) - and thus all other reviews are going to be proforma. OR if the second review panel has some "experts" who recommend against the deal - but are ignored and shut out of reporting their concerns and Congress is only notified about the "clean bill of health" that was previously determined by those wanting the bill to go through without regard to concerns (as has been the case in numerous published accounts by various fed agencies and commissions.)? Given the known track record of this administration that uses such "reviews" to give a clean bill of health to whatever was determined to be the desired outcome from the beginning and ignore experts/scientists who dissent with the wisdom/safety/prudence of the desired outcome - what the heck is gained by notifying congress (esp if congress has no oversight power or never excersizes its oversight power.) This administration appears to be operating sham after sham on the american people and we are to "trust" them that a few more days of review would prevent future such shams?

[Kagemusha]

5. Yeah, exactly...

Someone decided that there wasn't even a possibility that Dubai Ports World would pose a security risk according to their criteria. (Probably compared to the present arrangements with other port operations companies, both foreign and domestic, i.e. no more a security threat than any other port, take that as you may!)

[hang a left]

6. Yeah.

That pretty much wraps it in a nutshell. Well said.

[leftchick]

2. He has been breaking laws with impunity for Five Fucking Years!!!

:argh:

[liberal N proud]

3. So when is Congress going to address all the laws bu$h has broken?

Almost everything they have done has broken the law, but Congress just sits by and rubber stamps it.
So get off your ass Shelby and do something this time.

[remfan]

4. BFD, Shelby

You and your GOPer pals have let this administration get away with whatever they wanted to do because you all thought it was a big benefit for your political careers, so it's too late to start whining about it now. Make your little law to "tighten" the review process, and let's all sit back and watch as the administration thumbs their nose at congress again.

Tools like you belong in a shed, not in the congress.

[tecelote]

7. Another law broken, another knotch in Bush's belt.

That's all folks.

[A Simple Game]

8. Some of those laws are OLD, don't you understand that!

It is a little known fact that most laws have an amendment attached to them stating "not applicable to Republican presidents".

Some laws should just have an expiration date on them anyway.

[BlueManDude]

9. Then stand up and nix the deal Shelby. Blah blah blah...

He posturing for the folks back home but in the end he's more concerned with protecting Bush than he is the people of Alabama.

[plasticsundance]

10. I know this is from a right wing rag ... but

Not to go off topic, but has anyone mentioned this at DU:

"According to CIA and defense officials, policy-makers were concerned about the danger that a strike would kill an Emirati prince or other senior officials who might be with bin Laden or close by," the commission said. The Clinton administration was so concerned about the emirates' cozy ties to bin Laden that one official called a United Arab Emirates political leader to complain.

Weeks later, the camp was dismantled, and bin Laden disappeared. The implication was clear: Someone in the United Arab Emirates tipped off bin Laden, the United States' most-wanted fugitive, who then was planning the September 11 attacks.

Considered an ally now, UAE backed bin Laden

"The United Arab Emirates was becoming both a valued counterterrorism ally of the United States and a persistent counterterrorism problem" the commission wrote. It said President Clinton personally pressed United Arab Emirates leaders to break financial and travel ties with the Taliban, but they refused.

[NVMojo]

11. interesting