Originally Posted by benjamin
How does obtaining a warrant stop the government from knowing about it?
For arguments sake lets say the FISA courts do not approve a warrant to listen to certain conversations. And to continue the argument lets say they are wrong and did not prevent a terrorist attack. Would it not be better to have listened without a warrant?
There still has not been any argument put forth that any rights have been violated by innocent American civilians.
Originally Posted by benjamin
The company in question is Dubai Ports World, wholly owned by the government of United Arab Emirates. In other words, the government of the UAE would have a degree of control over the ports. Is that really acceptable to you? A foreign government having any degree of control over American ports sounds like a good idea to you?
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...t_of_dp_world/
The above link has a right wing slant to it but it is the best I can find at the moment. DPW's Website appears to be down. Irregardless it does highlight the point that I want to make and that is that the senior management is American with a European sprinkled in. Duabai and these managers are in it to make money, not promote terrorism.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...rts-flap_x.htm
As a terminal operator, Dubai Ports World would be responsible only for terminal maintenance and security in the area where cargo containers are stored before being loaded onto trucks. Before that happens, some containers are inspected by the Coast Guard. Shipping company and port employees who handle cargo are checked against terrorist watch lists.
Security is still handled by the US, and while a debate over the level of security is applicable, trying to make it seem like Dubai would have control is false.
In Los Angeles, port spokeswoman Theresa Adams Lopez says, foreign operations include Yusen Terminals Inc., a subsidiary of Japanese shipping giant NYK Line, established in 1885.
The Port of Seattle has five container terminals. Three are run by U.S. companies, one is managed by a South Korean company, and the fifth is managed by a company partly owned by the Singapore government.
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey owns five primary cargo terminals, three of which are run by foreign firms. The terminal that would be run by the Dubai-based company is operated in conjunction with a Danish firm. The terminal is leased to the two companies and is five years into the 30-year lease, port authority spokesman Steve Coleman says. The other two main cargo terminals in New York and New Jersey are run by the same Danish firm and by a Hong Kong-based company.
As you can see Dubai would not be the first foreign owner of the ports deal...where is the outrage over the other foreign countries that own interests in the ports?