This morning in Baghdad, British and U.S. troops rescued three members of the Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT), Canadians Jim Loney and Harmeet Sooden and Briton Norman Kember. The three, along with American Tom Fox, were kidnapped by Islamofascist terrorists in November. Fox was subsequently tortured and murdered; his body was found earlier this month.

Note: The radio report I first heard, as well as most of the early (AP-based) stories, used the phrase "peace activists freed." I initially thought that the kidnappers had released them — set them free. The much more precise verb "rescued" has started to turn up in later headlines, but the ambiguous "freed" still dominates. A Google News search for "activists freed Iraq" returned 1220 matches, while a search for "activists rescued Iraq" found 657.

The CPT statement rejoicing in the men’s safe return undoubtedly contained some expression of gratitude — at least a simple "thanks" — to the troops who rescued them, right?

Umm, no. It contained an accusation that the troops who freed them — not the murderous thugs who held them — were to blame for the months of captivity and the barbaric murder of Fox:

… We believe that the illegal occupation of Iraq by Multinational Forces is the root cause of the insecurity which led to this kidnapping and so much pain and suffering in Iraq. The occupation must end.

Well, then at least the CPT called on the "militants" or "freedom fighters" or whatever to stop kidnapping and mistreating people, right?

Umm, no. They called on the Americans and Brits to stop kidnapping and mistreating people:

… We have been especially moved by the gracious outpouring of support from Muslim brothers and sisters in the Middle East, Europe, and North America. That support continues to come to us day after day. We pray that Christians throughout the world will, in the same spirit, call for justice and for respect for the human rights of the thousands of Iraqis who are being detained illegally by the U.S. and British forces occupying Iraq.

During these past months, we have tasted of the pain that has been the daily bread of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Why have our loved ones been taken? Where are they being held? Under what conditions? How are they? Will they be released? When?

… We continue to pray for a swift and joyful homecoming for the many Iraqis and internationals who long to be reunited with their families. We renew our commitment to work for an end to the war and the occupation of Iraq as a way to continue the witness of Tom Fox. We trust in God’s compassionate love to show us the way.

Of course, CPT is the group that in 2002 sent "human shields" into Baghdad to protect Saddam’s rape rooms from U.S. attack.

Many people, even libertarians and conservatives, admire groups like the CPT, describing them as "idealistic" or "noble." I find them contemptible. Someone at a Denver pro-victory rally had a sign that said it well: "Pacifists are the Parasites of Liberty"

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

— John Stuart Mill

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

During Tuesday’s press conference, President Bush finally made an important point regarding the NSA surveillance program — a point that his administration ought to be making daily. If, as the Democrats all contend, this program is illegal, then why haven’t they acted to stop it? Here’s Carl Cameron’s question and Bush’s answer (emphasis added):

Q Thank you, sir. On the subject of the terrorist surveillance program —

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q — not to change the tone from all this emphasis on bipartisanship, but there have been now three sponsors to a measure to censure you for the implementation of that program. The primary sponsor, Russ Feingold, has suggested that impeachment is not out of the question. And on Sunday, the number two Democrat in the Senate refused to rule that out pending an investigation. What, sir, do you think the impact of the discussion of impeachment and censure does to you and this office, and to the nation during a time of war, and in the context of the election?

THE PRESIDENT: I think during these difficult times — and they are difficult when we’re at war — the American people expect there to be a honest and open debate without needless partisanship. And that’s how I view it. I did notice that nobody from the Democrat Party has actually stood up and called for getting rid of the terrorist surveillance program. You know, if that’s what they believe, if people in the party believe that, then they ought to stand up and say it. They ought to stand up and say the tools we’re using to protect the American people shouldn’t be used. They ought to take their message to the people and say, vote for me, I promise we’re not going to have a terrorist surveillance program. That’s what they ought to be doing. That’s part of what is an open and honest debate. 

The Democrats in the House and Senate accused the President of breaking the law and denounced the NSA monitoring as unconscionable. But on the few occasions when someone asked if they’d be taking any action — such as introducing a bill to defund or terminate the program — they demurred. Just too busy with other matters, need to schedule hearings first, have to get back to you on that…

Most Democrats have no desire whatsoever to actually stop the NSA program. Most of them are, after all, sane enough to genuinely worry about phone calls from al Qaeda leaders to their agents in the U.S. They just want to bash Bush without actually changing anything.

I want those al Qaeda phone calls monitored, but I want it done legally and properly. It seems to me there are two concerns: First, is the NSA monitoring constitutional? Second, does it violate FISA?

The most reasonable argument against  the program’s constitutionality rests on the premise that the war itself is unconstitutional because Congress didn’t pass a formal declaration of war. I don’t buy that. I think a Congressional use of force authorization is the modern-day equivalent of a declaration of war and satisfies the constitutional requirement. Look at the history and intent. It’s simply not persuasive to me to argue that the Congresscritters voting for the use of force resolutions didn’t realize that they were authorizing the executive branch to wage war.

If the administration has been given the authority to wage war on al Qaeda / Islamofascists / terrorists — to bomb their buildings, destroy their supplies and equipment, and shoot them dead — then it seems to me that it must also have the authority to intercept their communications, including communications with their spies, saboteurs, and secret agents in the U.S.

Frankly, I haven’t given all that much thought to FISA. I read a few attempts, both for and against the legality of the NSA monitoring, to parse its convoluted language and decided that FISA is unclear on this issue. Given that ambiguity and Congress’ grant of war-making authority, which would seem to authorize such surveillance, it seems reasonable to conclude that the NSA program is legal.

At the least, the critics should concede that reasonable people can conclude that it’s legal. And that should take impeachment off the table — unless we’ve discarded the concept of mens rea completely or there’s evidence of criminal intent.

But regardless of whether you conclude that the program is legal or illegal, it ought to be clear that the applicability of FISA isn’t all that clear. And that, it seems to me, should suggest Congressional action. Both the President’s defenders and critics ought to be introducing legislation to clarify the legal status of the NSA monitoring.

Especially the critics. If what’s being done is illegal, as they claim, they need to take action — either to stop the monitoring or, if they think it should continue in some fashion, to spell out clearly what’s required to make it legal.

Instead, the Democrats want to denounce the "lawbreakers" and punish the "crime," but they want to let the alleged criminal activity continue. This is all about scoring points and inflicting political damage. This utter disregard for what’s in the best interests of the country and cynical manipulation of national security issues bother me more than the possibility of a technical FISA violation.

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

A Congressional censure resolution is an official expression of criticism and condemnation, a reprimand. Sometimes a president’s behavior deserves to be censured by the Congress in order to make it clear that the American people’s elected representatives disapprove of his actions.

Take President James Earl Carter — please!

Carter was a terrible president. He’s been an even worse ex-president. Carter never met a left-wing dictator or murderous thug whom he didn’t like. He lied and helped cover up Hugo Chavez’s massive election fraud, lending legitimacy to this Castro communist’s repressive regime. He’s seized every opportunity to criticize the United States and Israel throughout the world, while defending terrorists and schmoozing with our enemies.

Carter recently began speaking out in support of Hamas, a 7th-century gang of murderous, uncivilized barbarians. And his latest project? He’s working to block U.S.-led reform of the U.N. Human Rights Commission in order to ensure that it continues to be run by such human rights paragons as Cuba, Libya, the Sudan, and Zimbabwe.

Melanie Morgan of Move America Forward wrote a WorldNetDaily column last week arguing that if Congress is going to censure a president, it ought to be Carter, not Bush. The response, she said, was a deluge of requests to actually launch a "Censure Carter" drive. So she did.

CensureCarter.com is dedicated to petitioning Congress to censure America’s most prestigious apologist for terrorists. Check it out. Take a look at the bill of particulars against him, and then sign the petition.

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

Forward Biased is hosting Carnival of Liberty #37, and it’s huge. Check it out, there’s something for everyone for sure.  Obi-Wan organized the posts by topic, but the first topic, politics, contains so many entries that by the time I reached the second topic (parody), I’d forgotten there were topics. 🙂

If you didn’t see the cat fall 80 feet out of a tree (I’m sure it was on your local news last night), drop by basil’s blog and click the link to the video. I’d send you right to it, but Cousin Red’s comments on the subject of cats in trees may amuse you. Besides, it’s a White Trash Wednesday post, and there’s a list of other blogs that celebrate White Trash Wednesday from time to time — you might want to check some of them out, too. I haven’t been paying attention to White Trash Wednesday lately, for which ahm sho ’nuff sorry, y’all.

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

On the off chance that you haven’t already read about this — Abdul Rahman is an Afghani who converted from Islam to Christianity. He’s been sentenced to death. How can that be under the new Afghani constitution? Well, it’s an interesting little legal formality — being Christian isn’t his crime:

Under Afghanistan’s new constitution, minority religious rights are protected but Muslims are still subject to strict Islamic laws.

And so, officially, Muslim-born Rahman is charged with rejecting Islam and not for practicing Christianity.

Doug at Below the Beltway has all the details and links, including email and snail mail addresses, online petitions, etc. Go read, and then do something — we didn’t kick Taliban butt to let crap like this happen.

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

Am I the only person whose eyebrows shot up upon hearing about this assault on a prison in an eastern Iraqi village? It has to be one of the largest forces to mount an attack in the past year, maybe longer:

About 100 masked gunmen stormed a prison near the Iranian border Tuesday, cutting phone wires, freeing all the inmates and leaving behind a scene of devastation and carnage — 20 dead policemen, burned-out cars and a smoldering jailhouse.

At least 10 attackers were killed in the dawn assault on the Muqdadiyah lockup on the eastern fringe of the Sunni Triangle, police said. The raid showed the mostly Sunni militants can still assemble a large force, capable of operating in the region virtually at will — even though U.S. and Iraqi military officials said last year that the area was no longer an insurgent stronghold.

So — after I noted with derision the AP’s use of the term "Sunni militants" — the first thought that crossed my mind was "Why? What was their goal?" The Islamofascist insurgents cannot easily mount operations of this scale and sophistication, or they’d be doing it regularly.

This was a special effort. It was carefully planned to ensure that communications were disrupted and that there were no U.S. or Iraqi Army patrols nearby who might interfere. Did the insurgents just randomly choose this small prison in this out-of-the-way village as a place to flex their military muscle? Probably not:

In all, 33 prisoners were freed, including 18 insurgents who were detained Sunday during raids by security forces in the nearby villages of Sansal and Arab, police said. It was the capture of those insurgents that apparently prompted Tuesday’s attack. The 15 other inmates were a mix of suspected insurgents and common criminals.

I’m guessing the raid wasn’t just to free a rag-tag group of imprisoned insurgents. This was too much risk, effort, planning, and personnel just to free some dime-a-dozen streetfighters with AK47s. I think the Iraqis had someone important in that prison, but were unaware of his identity.

I hope (but doubt) that there are good records — mug shots, fingerprints, identity papers, etc. — and that some of our experts are looking into this.

Thanks to Mudville Gazette, Outside the Beltway, basil’s blog, Argghhh!, and Jo’s Cafe.

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

I support the Bush Doctrine in general and the liberation of Iraq in particular, but I’ll gladly admit that those choices aren’t slam-dunks. Reasonable people can reach different conclusions, and there are plenty of questions about GWOT strategy, military tactics, Iraqi politics, and a dozen related subjects that deserve ongoing debate and discussion.

Regrettably, it’s hard to have an intelligent debate and discussion with most of the people who oppose the Bush Doctrine and/or the liberation of Iraq.

"Bush lied, people died!"

"You mean about WMDs or Saddam’s support of terrorists? Well, that’s not true. Are you familiar with Stephen Hayes’ book, The Connection? Or the Iraqi documents from the Saddam era that have recently been translated? Or the WMD evidence presented by…"

"Neo-cons! You can’t believe any of that! They’re all lies made up by neo-cons so they can kill women and children and promote Zionist imperialism and steal Iraq’s oil! Neo-cons lied, people died!"

"Now calm down. You can’t reject all this evidence just because…"

"La-la-la-la-la, I can’t hear you! Bush lied, people died! Bush lied, people died!"

The "arguments" of most liberal/left critics (and, I’m sorry to say, of most libertarians and paleoconservatives, too) are hardly worth the effort required to refute and discredit them. For real intelligent discussions of the strategic and tactical mistakes made and lessons learned, the political and military prognoses in Iraq, and the desirability of continuing to pursue the Bush Doctrine, you have to look at the disagreements among those on the right.

For instance, William F. Buckley declared Iraq a failure, and Rich Lowry and Jed Babbin have triggered a debate over the Bush Doctrine that’s ongoing. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Cliff May can always be counted on to chime in. National Review Online hosted a symposium on "Iraq three years in." For the liberal hawk perspective, there’s Christopher Hitchens.

But any consideration of the Bush Doctrine and Iraq should pay attention to what George W. Bush says. I strongly recommend that you read Monday’s speech to the City Club of Cleveland. Much of the speech is devoted to telling the story of the western Iraqi city of Tal Afar. It’s a fascinating story, and well-told. It’s the story of initial mistakes and complete failure, a serious rethinking of strategy and tactics, and finally tremendous success:

The success of Tal Afar also shows how the three elements of our strategy in Iraq — political, security, and economic — depend on and reinforce one another. By working with local leaders to address community grievances, Iraqi and coalition forces helped build the political support needed to make the military operation a success. The military success against the terrorists helped give the citizens of Tal Afar security, and this allowed them to vote in the elections and begin to rebuild their city. And the economic rebuilding that is beginning to take place is giving Tal Afar residents a real stake in the success of a free Iraq. And as all this happens, the terrorists, those who offer nothing but destruction and death, are becoming marginalized.

The strategy that worked so well in Tal Afar did not emerge overnight — it came only after much trial and error. It took time to understand and adjust to the brutality of the enemy in Iraq. Yet the strategy is working. And we know it’s working because the people of Tal Afar are showing their gratitude for the good work that Americans have given on their behalf. A recent television report followed a guy named Captain Jesse Sellars on patrol, and described him as a "pied piper" with crowds of Iraqi children happily chanting his name as he greets locals with the words "Salaam alaikum," which mean "peace be with you."

When the newswoman asks the local merchant what would have happened a few months earlier if he’d been seen talking with an American, his answer was clear: "They’d have cut off my head, they would have beheaded me." Like thousands of others in Tal Afar, this man knows the true meaning of liberation.  

Read the free-wheeling Q&A session that followed, too. Yeah, a few of the questions were softballs, but there were some pretty tough ones, too. And, with allowances for his less-than-glib-and-polished delivery, Bush handled them rather well, displaying his command of the subject matter and firmness of conviction. He did the same during the press conference this morning — his handling of the execrable Helen Thomas was a highlight for me.

I was struck by how much better, on average, the questions from ordinary citizens in Cleveland were than the questions from the professional journalists. The former varied from supportive to confrontational, but they were all real questions to which the askers expected — and got — real answers. Many of the journalists’ questions, on the other hand, seemed to be opening gambits in an argument, not real questions. Most of them began with a dependent clause that stated as fact an extremely dubious premise, e.g., "Now that you’ve stopped beating your wife, will domestic violence initiatives…" The argumentativeness of the reporters was apparent on the multiple occasions when Bush was interrupted just a few seconds into his answer. These journalists weren’t interested in hearing Bush’s answers, they were interested in refuting them.

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

About a month ago, I wrote about Japan’s impending restrictions on the sale of electronic devices more than five years old. The new regulation, which is set to take effect April 1, allows the sale of such equipment only if the seller gets a special certificate verifying that the equipment meets the "Electrical Appliance and Material Safety Law" of 2001.

Via Engadget comes news from Mutant Frog (actually, from an anonymous commentor at Mutant Frog) that the Japanese government is easing the rules in response to public pressure. Certain vintage electronics related to music and photography, including guitar amps and electronic musical instruments, have been exempted from the testing and certification, and will only have to meet a simplified registration requirement:

According to the Mainichi Shinbum, the Japanese Synthesizer Programmers Association delivered a petition with 75,000 signatures to the PSE office, prompting their decision to reclassify musical equipment.

75,000 signatures to save vintage synthesizers! Jeez, how many synthesizer programmers are there in Japan?

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

So, how paranoid about identity theft are you? Do you have a paper shredder? Do you use it religiously? If your answers are "not very," "no," and "obviously not, dummy," then you’d better go to Cockeyed.com and read Rob’s story of The Torn-Up Credit Card Application:

I get a heck of a lot of credit card applications in the mail.
A bunch for Visa, quite a few from Mastercard and tons of them from American Express.

I almost always tear them in half and throw them away.

Sometimes, if I am feeling particularly paranoid, I’ll tear them into little bitty pieces.

Is that good enough? Could a determined and dexterous criminal gather all the bits, tape them together and apply for a card in my name? Would a credit card company balk when confronted with an obviously resurrected application?

A test was in order, and when the latest application arrived from Chase Mastercard, I was equal to the task.

Go read it, really. It’ll only take a minute; it’s 4 pages, but each is just a few short sentences and some nice pictures illustrating the task. Fascinating.

Here’s the bottom line: After tearing the application into about 15-20 pieces, Rob taped them back together, filled it out, changed the pre-printed address and phone number, and sent it in. Chase sent him a credit card. At the new address he provided. And let him activate it with the cell phone number he’d provided.

Heck, someone who doesn’t have a (throwaway) cell phone could probably send them a pay phone number and use that.

Those of you who already have and use a shredder are probably feeling smugly self-satisfied now. As for the rest of you — well, this link should help.

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

This week’s Carnival of Liberty is at The Unrepentant Individual. Brad Warbiany has done a terrific job introducing this week’s entries, and there are quite a few interesting ones. Eminent domain and property rights are still popular subjects. Would you believe a local government seizing a private golf course in order to create a public golf course? According to Doug at Below the Beltway, they’re thinking about it at the People’s Republic of Long Island.

The carnival also features posts on property rights and sovereignty in space, efforts to curb eminent domain abuse, Tom Monaghan’s right to put his property to "Catholic-friendly" uses, and several posts about the government of Israel’s ongoing process of "Disengagement," which means evicting some people from their land for being Jewish.

One of those facing eviction is frequent Carnival of Liberty contributor Batya of Shilo Musings, and Different River summed up her situation this way:

No, of course she’s not a Palestinian terrorist – if she were, to evict her would be a human rights violation. It’s nothing personal, and it’s nothing she did – she is being evicted for being a Jew living in Shiloh, the pre-Davidic capital of ancient Israel – where Jews “aren’t supposed” to live anymore.

Batya herself rejected the notion that the "Disengagement" evictions are appropriate uses of eminent domain:

The principle of Eminent domain does not cover giving land won in a defensive war to terrorists whose aim is the destruction of the “giving” country.

As Glenn might say, "Indeed."

Other topics covered include abortion, equality, the Patriot Act, platelet donations, ports, the VA, and the spread of democracy. It’s a great carnival — check it out.

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

I want to belatedly recommend Neo-neocon’s Ex-Taliban at Yale: Another Changed Mind?. I read it several days ago after seeing it in the Watcher’s Council list of nominees. It subsequently finished first among non-council posts in the voting results. The post is a fascinating look at the story of Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, the former Taliban spokesman who’s now a student at Yale.

Neo-neocon is the perfect person to examine the question of profound political change, which Hashemi’s friends claim he’s undergone. She has doubts, but overall thinks his story has the ring of truth to it. I agree, it all seems to hang together plausibly. It’s certainly an interesting story. Check it out and see what you think.

The winning council post was The Bloody Borders Project at The Gates of Vienna, which is far less positive and hopeful than the tale of Hashemi’s (purported) "redemption," but also quite interesting. The Baron mapped every instance of Islamic terrorism since 9/11/2001 and created a Flash animation of the map. The map and animation illustrate the extent to which there is violence and bloodshed wherever Islam comes into contact with other cultures. Dymphna’s essay describes the project and frames the issue well. Check it out, too, but don’t even think of clicking the animation link without a broadband connection — it’s 8MB.

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

Over at The Washington Post, Jabari Asim is convinced that "pimp" will go out of style in the ‘hood, now that it’s becoming fashionable in Hollywood. He has some suggestions for replacements:

While the prospect of previously oblivious whites adopting the word is a nauseating probability, the mainstreaming of "pimp" should reduce its popularity in the black communities where it first shucked its cobwebs and regained its currency. Its anticipated lapse in popularity creates an opportunity to suggest new lingo to my fellow African-American city dwellers, who often originate the nation’s catchiest slang.

My first suggestion: "scholar."

Imagine yourself amid all the men who used to gather aimlessly on street corners, lounge on the steps of other people’s houses and hang out with the rest of the worshipful congregations outside package liquor stores — all of you deeply absorbed in library books.
…

You’ll help to popularize an exciting new trend. Once it catches on in "urban" neighborhoods, it will inevitably "cross over" into white ones and, before you know it, openly building one’s intellectual muscles will be known as "acting black."
…

"Say, brother," one of your fellow intellectuals might say, "looks like you have quite a bit of studying to do this fine evening."

"You’re right," you might reply. "I could be off luring vulnerable women into an exploitative economic relationship based on the trading of sex for money — behavior that would benefit neither myself, the hapless women or all those desperate, duplicitous and disease-spreading customers who should be home with their wives and children (see below). But what can I tell you? It’s hard out here for a scholar."

He has some other suggestions, too. Go read the whole thing (use BugMeNot if necessary). But don’t hold your breath waiting for Kanye West to get on board.

HT: Betsy’s Page via Ed Driscoll, who also noted Jonah Goldberg’s related comments about Kanye West.

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

In a just world, the consummation of a contractual business deal, such as Dubai Ports World’s purchase of the British firm P&O, wouldn’t require the approval of some government commission. Of course, in a just world, Chuck Schumer would be handing out business cards at accident scenes, and Barbara Boxer would be asking, "You want fries with that?"

It’s been two weeks since I scoffed at the security concerns that had everybody in a tizzie over the DP World deal. I’ve heard nothing about the ports situation since then to change my mind. In fact, I’ve heard plenty to confirm my opinion. For instance:

• DPW wasn’t buying ports, "taking over" ports, or "controlling port security" — it bought a company that leases 24 out of 839 terminals in 6 US ports. Got that? Leasing 24 out of 839 port terminals. Stop hyperventilating and get a grip.
• DPW’s security record, reliability as a business partner, and suitability for managing U.S. terminal operations were strongly vouched for (PDF) by Zim Integrated Shipping Services, Ltd., Israel’s largest shipping line.
• If letting an Arab-owned company unload sealed containers in our ports is just too dangerous, what about letting Arab-owned companies operate passenger and cargo terminals at our airports and fly jets over our cities on a daily basis?
  

  While the entire US political-wonk class is frothing out the mouth over the sale of "port dock concessions to the United Arab Emirates" in a fashion I havent seen since the great "Flouride Wars of the 1950’s", it turns out that "Emirates Air" and its subsidiary "Emirates Sky Cargo" has Passenger and Cargo Terminal Space at JFK.

• While Sen. Clinton was preparing to demagogue the ports deal to appear tough on national security, her husband was advising the UAE and DPW on how to get the deal through. In fact, he’s collected fees reaching seven figures from the UAE, and the Justice Dept. is trying to determine if he’s an unregistered foreign agent. As for the Senator’s claim that she didn’t know anything about it:
  

  In fact, at least two senior outside advisers to Senator Clinton were attempting to get business out of the Port Deal, and President Clinton was the go-between. Associates with the Glover Park Group, which houses just about the entire shadow staff for Hillary’s run-up to a Democratic presidential bid, were attempting to get a slice of the DPW deal before the deal was made public about three weeks ago. According to current and former President Clinton staff, Hillary Clinton’s Senate office was aware that Glover Park was in the running to do work on the DPW deal.

In my first post on this topic, I noted that the unloading of containers at U.S. ports isn’t nearly as important to our security as the loading of those containers in their ports of origin. I was reminded of that when I read Robert M. Green’s new article, Still Dubious About Dubai?, at TCS Daily. Green makes a strong argument that DP World would increase our security, an argument based in part on DP World’s leadership in innovation and modernization of shipping and port operations in general and container terminal operations specifically:

Carved from the Dubai Ports Authority, the company’s reputation for technological implementation dates back to its project to automate many of its processes in the 1990s. At that time, Dubai became one of the first ports in the world to implement so-called e-shipping, digitizing most of its planning, scheduling and operations while "building out" a CRM (customer relations management)/Web portal system that was one of the first of its kind used by a port.

According to American e-commerce experts who followed the UAE technology implementation as it has evolved, it was Dubai’s willingness to invest in IT that allowed it to offer container shipping and related services at lowered costs for its customers. Last year, a Homeland Security official called the two-terminal Dubai facility "modern and extremely efficient ports."

While the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and the implementation of the White House-backed Container Security Initiative (CSI) tested the resilience of port operators both here and abroad, the port of Dubai continued even in that period to grow both in volume and influence in worldwide shipping. In 2004 Dubai made another bold-stroke decision, becoming the first Middle Eastern port (and 35th overall) to agree to the CSI, signing formally last March. CSI gives U.S. Customs personnel a foothold in foreign ports and requires that state-of-the-art security systems such as gamma ray, x-ray and radiological detection systems be implemented for cargo inspection.

DP World is, in fact, operating the most advanced container terminals in the world, both in terms of security and efficiency, and we should consider ourselves fortunate that they are, since those terminals are the source of many containers bound for the U.S.:

… At the recently opened Pusan Newport in South Korea, DP World and tech partner Samsung of Japan worked with the Korean port authority to build a state-of-the-art security port.

Pusan opened for business late last year fashioned around a Samsung-developed central security system in which threats are anticipated and met via a network of monitors including advanced CCTV, lasers, radiological and other sensors, and explosives- and motion-detection fencing of the sort normally found in high-sensitivity military settings.

During the 2004 campaign, John Kerry tried to make an issue of the fact that "only 5%" of the containers entering the U.S. are inspected. He never got much traction with that complaint, but it also wasn’t slapped down as hard as it should have been. Our focus, quite properly, isn’t on inspecting containers after they arrive on our docks — it’s on ensuring that we know what’s going into them at the factories in China, India, Germany, and Korea, and that the security is reliable in ports like Shanghai and Pusan, where DP World loads those containers onto ships bound for the U.S.

Two weeks ago, I asked Republicans and conservatives:

Doesn’t it bother you to be on the same side as the utterly hypocritical Democrats who up until now have insisted that we’re not at war and that Bush is just trying to scare us with all this national security stuff? The Democrats who oppose profiling young Arab men in airports, but are eager to profile rich capitalist Arab businessmen? The Democrats whose opposition is probably fueled by longshoremen’s union contributions? (DP World has a history of modernizing and greatly improving the efficiency of container operations, something the union will fight tooth and nail to prevent.) The Democrats who are tickled pink that they can demagogue this issue to appear strong on national security without jeopardizing their support from the MoveOn, Deaniac, anti-war crowd?

Apparently it didn’t bother them. The Republicans in Congress, led by RINO Rep. Peter King, have raced to beat the Democrats to the credit for killing this deal. It’s contemptible, craven cowardice. But it worked. DP World has announced that they’ll sell all U.S. port operations to a U.S. company. There aren’t many potential buyers qualified to run such operations. I hope they sell the operations to Halliburton subsidiary KBR.

No matter. Whoever the buyer is, this means container terminal operations in those six ports won’t become as efficient, modernized, and secure as they would have under DP World management. But the gutless, unprincipled Republicans can breathe a sigh of relief, the Democrats can puff out their chests over their newfound national security stones, the nativists and xenophobes can turn their attention back to Mexicans, and the longshoremen’s union can gloat about all the featherbedding jobs that have been saved.

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed