Double Standards on Profiling
"If a citizen of the UAE walked into an airport in full burnoose and flowing robes, speaking only Arabic, Democrats would be deeply offended, and might even sue, if the security people were to give him any more scrutiny than they would to my sweet 84-year-old mother. Democrats loudly denounce any thought of racial profiling. But when that same Arab, attired in business suit and MBA, and with a good record running ports in 15 countries, buys P&O, Democrats howl at the very idea of allowing Arabs to run our ports. (Republicans are howling too, but they don't grandstand on the issue of racial profiling)" -- Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer.
For a discussion on the UAE purchase, see the link here.
For a discussion on the UAE purchase, see the link here.
posted by John Lott at 2:35 PM
2 Comments:
Scenario:
Terrorists plant a nuclear device in a container, and ship it to a US port, and detonate it by satellite phone the instant it enters a US port, and before it is inspected by anyone.
Question:
Exactly how will not having a UAE based company running the terminal dock at the port prevent this?
I have made some posts on this topic at:
http://sonyasgottascream.typepad.com/sonyas_gotta_scream/2006/02/ports_ocalling_.html#comments
The UAE company does not control the unloading of containers or the decisions regarding checking the containers. It looks to me as a none issue (unless someone can explain to me specifically what the problem is), though there are some conflicting conclusions among those who I respect. Here is something that John Fund sent around this morning:
"Jim Woolsey, a former CIA director under President Clinton, said that U.S. policy should be changed so that no company with ties to a sovereign government is allowed to manage U.S. port facilities. "We just can't take chances in the world as it is now," he told me. When I pointed out that companies owned in part by the Singapore and Chinese governments already had contracts with U.S. ports, he said, "For the sake of consistency I think those would have to end too."
"But others were less critical of the port deal. "The more I hear Democrats jumping on this issue with such blatant hypocrisy, the less I am interested in going after this deal," said Steve Emerson, the head of the Investigative Project on Terrorism. Daniel Pipes, a noted neo-conservative opponent of Islamic radicalism, told me he had no fixed views on the issue. He agreed that the United Arab Emirates was following a political and developmental model that was clearly more progressive than other Arab countries, and found the country "very impressive" on his one visit there.
Post a Comment
<< Home