TPM: Holes in the Dubai Ports World agreement

[Cooley Hurd]

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007733.php

<snip>
Looking at the "secret agreement" the White House seems to have leaked this afternoon, here's one point that sort of stands out.

The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.

The failure to require the company to keep business records on US soil sounds like a pretty open invitation to flout US law as near as I can tell. Forget terrorism. This is the sort of innovative business arrangement I would think a number of Bush-affiliated American companies might want to get in on. Perhaps Halliburton could be domiciled in Houston, pay its taxes in Bermuda, do its business in Iraq and keep its business records in Jordan.

<snip>
Under the deal, the government asked Dubai Ports to operate American seaports with existing U.S. managers "to the extent possible." It promised to take "all reasonable steps" to assist the Homeland Security Department, and it pledged to continue participating in security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials.

That paragraph is a beaut for the White House. "All reasonable steps" seems like a rather tepid standard of compliance with the Department of Homeland Security, doesn't it? And didn't we figure they'd want to help out regardless? Also, didn't we figure they'd keep helping out trying to prevent loose nukes from coming into the country? Did we just want to be sure?
</snip>

So, it appears DPW will operate with little oversight if they get the port deal...:grr:

[salin]

1. What is sad

is that there are some who have become so addicted to the angry partisan word wars, who will fully accept the WH claims as virtuous and any criticism as unfair political vitriol - completely ignoring the very odd set of statements coming from the WH:

Bush threatens veto of any congressional rejection of the deal (threatens his first veto)

but then

Bush didn't know about the deal until it was a done deal

but then

The WH ensured there was an agreement in the deal that ensured "security" (but bush didn't know about it )

and then

The "security" clause in the agreement is akin to 'comply, unless you don't want to (but bush threatened to veto any rejection by congress of the deal.

Headspinning - except to those who have fallen into idolotry for bush.

[Skidmore]

2. Anyone able to call this into Washington Journal this morning?

Point it out. Lou Dobbs, KO, Cafferty would all pass this on to the public readily.

[slor]

3. Good Idea !

But WE should all do it...I am starting my emails right now...LOL, I can hardly wait for Cafferty's take on this tidbit.

[NVMojo]

4. *

[NVMojo]

5. the WH is too busy spying on Americans to worry about full disclosure

from a foreign country making a profit off this country.

[NVMojo]

6. *

[NVMojo]

7. dupe, bad ISP DSL service