The Port Security Dilemma

While I was busy this weekend with patient care, among other things, a controversy has been raging over the sale of a British company to Dubai Ports World, of the United Arab Emirates, that would put that company in charge of port security and flow in major US ports such as Miami, Baltimore and Philadelphia.  This state-owned enterprise makes port security, in the minds of many, a major risk given the possibility of attacks originating in that part of the world.

I have been a little too occupied to digest the whole story, with all its nuances.  But even without all of the story fully digested I'm skeptical.  Conservative bloggers get criticism for the left for being lock-step supporters of any and all administration actions, without reservation.  It's true that, in general, if I was going to criticize the President or the administration, I would be far less likely to do it than someone on the left, and that criticism is not likely to take the same tone or angle of attack.  But criticize we do, as the Harriet Miers nomination for SCOTUS showed.

Now I'm even more skeptical.  Via Michelle Malkin, this story on Breitbart.com regarding the President's defense of the sale is a raises my antennae.

President Bush said Tuesday that the deal allowing an Arab company to take over six major U.S. seaports should go forward and that he would veto any congressional effort to stop it.

"After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward," Bush told reporters who had traveled with him on Air Force One to Washington. "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, `We'll treat you fairly.'"

"I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company."  That's a shoddy defense, and my guess is he knows it.  They should be held under higher scrutiny for a number of reasons:

1. The company is state-owned, not a private company
2. The company is a relative newcomer in this field.
3. The company is based in the middle east, a region where, no surprise, many people who would like to kill Americans live.
4. For many people the port security of this nation was already somewhat questionable; this would make it more questionable.

"Treated fairly" is not necessarily "treated the same," and it never has been.  That's why many of us object to the random passenger screening process at airports, where Granny and 9 year old children are as likely to be searched as anyone else.  It is perfectly fair to treat the turnover of our security to an Arab company with a more scrutiny and concern than would be the case for the longstanding British company that currently has the contract, and the Arab company and UAE should know that.

So, Mr. Bush, you can prove your task force looking at this sale has done proper due diligence, and assuage any unfounded fears, or you can sound like you're stonewalling.

2/22/06 0615: Kevin Aylward wins the headline award:

"Bush Fulfills "I'm A Uniter, Not A Divider" Pledge"

Comments

[Lane Parsons]

Mr Bush sounds like he has full faith in his direct reports..."...after careful review by OUR government..."

Okay, great. Most of us (The American People) actually do not have that much faith in our government. So how about you listen to us (the people), Mr. Bush? I speak for a great many Americans when I say - who cares what they think of us, they already hate us enough to fly airplanes into our buildings - DO NOT LET ANY OF THEM HAVE CONTROL OF ANYTHING IN AMERICA, ports or otherwise. And please dont compare a middle eastern country like UAE to Great Britain...

One other note...Dubai Ports already controls/owns a port in the Dominican Republic (a mere 7 or 8 hundred miles from Miami.)