RE: Can someone exlpain this to me?

["Ryan Counts" <rcounts () parkplacetexas com>]

Yeah, I didn't read the NYT article, thanks for pointing out that bit.
I did read a similar article in Reuters, which had this quote:

[snip]

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), a U.S.
inter-agency panel that reviews security implications of foreign
takeovers of strategic assets, reviewed the transaction and did not
object

[/snip]

I've heard that one line, 'not enough scrutiny', quite a bit lately in
the media and other places, and I keep wondering how you quantify
'enough scrutiny'.  Yes, Dubai is an exceedingly wealthy nation, and
happens to be Islamic.  Are they actively involved in terrorism, either
in financing, planning or other backing?  The reason I brought up my
questions earlier is because this whole deal just feels to me like a
'They're islamists, so they must be a threat' kind of deal, which
doesn't help our relations with the few allies we have in that region.
Another quote from the Reuters article, which I've seen elsewhere:

[snip]

U.S. seaports handle 2 billion tons of freight each year. Only about 5
percent of containers are examined on arrival.

[/snip]

So, with security this tight, this deal is going to create a security
hole where we had none before?

I guess my main question is, should all Middle Eastern countries making
acquisitions in the US be held to higher scrutiny than other countries,
even if they have a track record of fighting terrorism in the past?  And
if so, what quantifies sufficient scrutiny?  And finally, but most
importantly, what's the best delivery method of Vodka?



-----Original Message-----
From: Fergie [mailto:fergdawg () netzero net] 
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 11:59 PM
To: Ryan Counts
Cc: funsec () linuxbox org
Subject: RE: [funsec] Can someone exlpain this to me?

Yes, I think you are missing the point. :-)

I think that if read the article, you'd find a particularly
interesting passage that stated:

[snip]

Several lawmakers, including Representative Peter T. King of Long
Island, who is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, and
Senator Charles E. Schumer, have criticized the administration for its
approval of the deal, saying it was done too quickly and without enough
scrutiny of the ramifications for security at American ports.

[snip]

The problem, my young friend, is that this is yet another example
of critical security decisions being made in a vacuum, without
proper vetting --  otherwise known as 'adult supervision'.

- ferg



-- "Ryan Counts" <rcounts () parkplacetexas com> wrote:

I guess I'm missing the point here, but it seems as if we have a problem
with a British (foreign) company being bought by another foreign
company.  So it's alright if British companies run ports in the US, but
not alright for Dubai (or Middle Eastern?) companies?  Would the same
stink be raised if a German company was the buyer?  How about an Israeli
company?  I honestly don't see a problem here; can someone enlighten me?
I mean, I could see a problem if those shifty Canadians were trying to
sneak in...

[snip]

--
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
 Engineering Architecture for the Internet
 fergdawg () netzero net or fergdawg () sbcglobal net
 ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/


_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.