Questioning the Port Administration Plan

Welcome Michelle Malkin readers who've jumped over from my earlier posting. Ed Morrisey breaks out some details that might have been skimmed or overlooked by the "rigorous review process" of the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS) when determining the appropriateness state-owned Dubai Ports World's proposed investment/ownership of several US ports. And given the Committee's track record of rubber stamping approval, one is left with the impression that foreign investment superseded any concern over national security.

Here's a few more questions that probably should be addressed (in no particular order) by the administration, but have provided my own answers:

1) Should there be some kind of terrorist attack at one of these ports, including mass casaulty attack, will affected individuals be able to sue the company and seize assets to recover losses? As we'd seen in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, individuals could sue the Port Authority of NY for failures at the WTC and Newark Airport where one of the flights originated. Similarly, the operators of Logan Airport were also sued for failures due to the origination of flights from that airport. And those were acts of negligence.

What if the company was somehow complicit in the terrorist attack - what's the recourse? Why should we take that risk in the first place?

2) Why is the Department of Treasury the final word on this issue, when there are national security and homeland security matters? Was DHS, the DoD, or other federal agencies consulted?

3) Was the New York Police Department, New Jersey State Police, or Port Authority Police Departments consulted when this decision was reached on transferring the New York/New Jersey ports? Considering that the Port Authority is demanding information to be able to conduct its own independent investigation, the answer is no.

4) Was foreign investment in the US put ahead of US national security? Yes, it was.

And this is an issue that completely cuts across traditional left/right blogosphere and pundit reactions, not to mention politicians speaking out about the deal. Most of the reaction is against this deal going through. Daily Kos is aghast (though that's their usual state of being on all things related to the Bush Administration), but notes the following:

No matter how good our relations are with that country, how can we ever justify letting another government control the security of our citizens?

The answer is an emphatic no. The New York Times editorial page opposes the deal as well.

The Democratic Daily blog is also indignant over the proposed deal.

UPDATE:
The Bergen Record has a story in today's paper about how the Dubai World Ports deal would affect New Jersey, and specifically deals with how the Port Authority Chairman came to know of the deal.

Technorati: port security, port authority, dubai, national security, foreign investment.