The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
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.

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.

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.

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

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Do you feel the same way about domestic wiretapping?

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 In the end, I think FISA is outdated and needs to be changed and the President has a colorable argument that he has the inherent right to do this under Article II.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
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.

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
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.

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?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Why would I admit that backing the legal (and necessary) wiretapping is selling out the Constitution?

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

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.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

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

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.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
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.

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?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Other than your cite to the Chron, I've seen no indication in any media that the process was not followed.

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

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Other than your cite to the Chron, I've seen no indication in any media that the process was not followed.

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

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
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.

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.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
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.

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

[ltl/fb]

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

Excellent point.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Sidd may have you there.
T[/url]

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.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
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.

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.