Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

2.

Evidence? ncs never felt the need to create a Club@50 sock to expose the pure hypocrisy of his act.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

You nail SS?

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

It amuses me to no end that the "usual suspects" proponents of the "living, breathing Constitution" all become original intent-ers when Bush's terrorism policy is at issue.

BTW, where was all the outcry over surveillance during Camelot II*?

*'93-'01

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

You mean Ken Starr spending $50mil searching to get to the bottom of a blow job? I recall being outraged.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Civil libertarians like Nat Hentoff were constantly complaining about various and sundry Camelot II policies at the time. Like the "roving wiretaps" issue. See http://www.enterstageright.com/archi...499hentoff.htm or http://talkleft.com/new_archives/001010.html

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

there were several BJs. And this country spends several billion a year on porn. If we can invest that much in masturbation 50M for actual BJs seemed reasonable.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Hentoff is an anomaly in the world today. A principled (and always consistent) libertarian that totally leans left.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

You don't really need to think about the original intent, since Article I explicitly gives the Congress powers to do all sorts of things with regard to the military. I'm not sure that anyone told Bush there is an Article I before Article II.

What is it that you think Clinton did?

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

1) There was an investigation pursuant to Exon-Florio by a commission created by statute to do just these things. They found no problem, and did not recommend the President block the transaction, pursuant to the statute that gives him such power.

2) Other foreign governments, including China, operate ports in the US.

3) Operating a port does not mean control over everything, it's control only over the dock space and cargo movement from ships to land. They're leasing space to conduct these operations, which have little to do with security. There still is security, applicable to all port use, that is handled by the government.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

An excellent reason not to conduct an investigation required by law: "I don't think we'll find anything."



I would agree with this, if it weren't for the fact that people I despise even more than I do Bush, like Frist, are calling for him to slow down and comply with the law.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

2.


We want and need, and occasionally even get, Russian participation in the war on terror. But I wouldn't want the Customs Service to contract out to Putin Industries, without at least the full investigation required by law.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

[pssst] Slave, FISA is not an acronym for the Constitution. [/pssst]

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

I am all for doing whatever to make it so China no longer operates ports in the US. In fact, I'm kinda glad this whole issue has come up to focus attention on this.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

He's "the exception that proves the rule" -- is that the phrase you are looking for? (You know, what you say when you make some bold, sweeping pronouncement and someone immediately pulls out an example showing that what you said is bullshit?)

Something Old, Something New
 

Just to change the subject:

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/iraq

Summary: Sunnis bomb some big-ass, highly important mosque. Shiites retaliate, bombing some 90 Sunni holy sites. Iraqi President warns of "civil war." Fortunately, no one publishes any cartoons of the Prophet. That would make things really ugly.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Read this WaPo article and tell me why this particular transaction raises concerns that the others do not. Extra points if you can do so without reliance on an assumption that a UAE company is more likely to assist terrorists than other companies. Half extra points if you do so, but explain why racial/ethnic profiling is justified in these circumstances, although not in the general case.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Understood on #1, but the President's "trust me" explanation does not make me feel warm and fuzzy this time. I'm even cool with the investigaiton being private, as long as another branch of government is looking at the matter.

On #2, is that true?

On #3, I know that, but if I was a foreign government trying to penetrate the US ports, having control of the ports would be a great first step.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

By "having control of the ports" you mean having the right to operate machinery and off-load cargo for third parties at a port facility located in the United States, right? Because I still don't see how it's a real threat beyond what someone could do now.

What you're assuming is that this company is going to facilitate the carriage of dangerous cargo from a foreign port, where it's screened (they won't do a good job compared to others) to a U.S. port, where it's screened by U.S. security, and that creates risk?

I suppose that we'd better take away control of airline gates by Air China, Aeroflot, Emirates Air, et al., because they could get stuff in that way, too.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Do you feel the same way about domestic wiretapping?

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

I was thinking the risk was that someone in the UAE would help would-be terrorists infiltrate the ports by giving them the inside scoop about how the security works, etc.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

I think the proximity/access is help from a recon/planning standpoint. I also think it makes it easier for illegals to enter the US.

Hadn't thought about this one before. Is that what actually happens? The airline has control over its gate?

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

If you mean conflicted, then yes, although I am a little more comforted by the fact that the program was briefed to members of congress. In the end, I think FISA is outdated and needs to be changed and the President has a colorable argument that he has the inherent right to do this under Article II.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

There is no indication in the article that the processes required by law were circumvented in the other cases.

The other cases involved Taiwan, South Korea, etc. None of those countries could be characterized as a financing center for terrorism, as can the UAE, which has cooperated less than fully, some would say, in dealing with that.

I guess I lose points for suggesting that a UAE company would be more likely to assist terrorists, or not take all necessary steps to prevent terrorists from compromising their operations at sensitive port sites. But since the UAE has been more likely allow, or assist, or not prevent terrorists from using the UAE as a financing center, I don't see that as unreasonable.

I also don't see how this constitutes "racial/ethnic" profiling. I would be less concerned if this were Oman, say. But, still, I would want the investigative process provided by law to be followed.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Is there anything about the actual "briefings" that Congress received that gave you comfort? For example, the fact that the congressmen couldn't discuss what they heard with anyone leaves me feeling that the briefings wouldn't do anything to rein in the executive branch if it were going too far.

In what sense is FISA "outdated"? How does it need to be "changed"? Do you think it was the right thing to do for the President to decide to violate it for four years instead of suggesting that it be amended?

Why do you think that the President has a colorable argument under Article II? Did you consider the extent of Congress's powers under Article I, Section 8?

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

I agree with Ty on the port thing. It is a non -issue that congressmen are getting involved in to score political points (both Dems and Repubs). Ty and Sebby both see that people on this board are getting suckered by the politicians into thinking this is an issue when it is not.

On the constitutionality of the wire taps, I have to disagree. It is my understanding that the only communications that are being tapped are ones either originating inside the US and ending up overseas or visa versa. I don't think you have any constitutional protection over such communications.

Your mail is not protected as such, and neither are you when you travel.

However, such tapping may violate that law that I can never remember the name of. So it may be illegal, but I don't think it is unconstitutional.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

When people talk about the constitutionality of the wiretaps, they are usually talking not about whether the wiretapping violates one's Fourth Amendment rights, but about whether the wiretapping is within the President's power under Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, in which case the law that you can never remember the name of, FISA, would be unconstitutional as applied.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Other than your cite to the Chron, I've seen no indication in any media that the process was not followed. Indeed, the company has said they approached Treasury (where CFIUS is housed) in advance of the transaction to work to obtain approval. This was not rubber-stamped. Maybe you have a different definition of investigation than CFIUS does, but I highly doubt they didn't look into this enough to be able to say they did when the inevitable controversy arose.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Why wouldn't they infiltrate an existing shipping co.?

You think the longshoreman's union is signing up all the middle-easterns they can right now?

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

How hard have you looked? Not very, as far as I can tell.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Sidd may have you there.

• The administration's review of the deal was conducted by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a body that was created in 1975 to review foreign investments in the country that could affect national security. Under that review, officials from the Defense, State, Commerce and Transportation Departments, along with the National Security Council and other agencies, were charged with raising questions and passing judgment. They found no problems to warrant the next stage of review, a 45-day investigation with results reported to the president for a final decision.
  
  However, a 1993 amendment to the law stipulates that such an investigation is mandatory when the acquiring company is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government. Administration officials said they conducted additional inquires because of the ties to the United Arab Emirates, but they could not say why a 45-day investigation did not occur.

NYT

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

I was going in the direction of no non-US companies owning port-type stuff. So, I'm being a xenophobic fuck, not a racist or ethnicist fuck.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Plus, if we follow your plan from yesterday, this company wouldn't have a home office anyway.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Excellent point.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Indeed.

Although the statute provides for the additional review if:

• o the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government; and
  
  o the acquisition "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."

cite: link to CFIUS (emphasis added)

So, if the second condition is not met, then the review isn't required.

Also, I think the 45 days is set to protect the companies, not set the length of the investigation. That is, the government gets an additional 45 days, not "has to take." I could see with advance notice that the concerns were resolved sufficiently.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Looking for ways to expand your company's business model? I think they should give you a gold star for the month. And maybe a reserved parking space.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Where were you when the Brits owned the company? Sitting on your hands, apparently.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

the times is not so convincing. Are there no blogs for authority?

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

No one told me.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Both issues share a common thread of people arguing - vehemently - against or for something they're not even sure is taking place. We don't know to what extent the UAE company is/would be involved in securing ports, or the full why/where/who of how it got approval. We don't know what the govt is wiretapping because nobody doing the tapping will fully dislose its scope.

So it seems to me that we're really getting ahead of ourselves - spouting off about things we don't even know exist or fully understand.

My suspicion is both of these isssues are what the media has fixated on because its been a slow news cycle. Spanky is right - we're being whipped into voting on issues which may not even exist by opportunist politicians and the media.

Instead of playing into their faux debate, we ought to vote with our remote controls and newspaper susbscriptions. Turn the fuckers off until they ask substantive questions and give substantive answers which allow us to fully understand the alleged "issues." Then we can argue about them.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

If this thing comes down to a scandal about whether arcane bureaucratic procedure was followed, the story will be deader than Curt Gowdy by Sunday.