Links
Archives
- 01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004
- 11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004
- 12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005
- 01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005
- 02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005
- 03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005
- 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005
- 05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005
- 06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005
- 07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005
- 08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005
- 09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005
- 10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005
- 11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005
- 12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006
- 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006
- 02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006
- 03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006
- 04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006
- 05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006
- 06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006
- 07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006
- 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006
- 09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006
- 10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006
- 11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006
- 12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007
- 01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007
- 02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007
- 03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007
- 04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007
- 07/01/2007 - 08/01/2007
- 08/01/2007 - 09/01/2007
- 09/01/2007 - 10/01/2007
- 10/01/2007 - 11/01/2007
- 07/01/2008 - 08/01/2008
A tribute to Condoleeza Rice and George W. Bush who, despite voluminious evidence to the contrary, said, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile," adding that "even in retrospect" there was "nothing" to suggest that" and "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees," respectively.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Why Leave Out Customary Provisions?
[In approving the purchase, the administration chose not to require Dubai Ports to keep copies of its business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to orders by American courts. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate requests by the government.]
Source
Working on the premise that omission of these provisions was purposeful and not an oversight, it makes me wonder what was the motivation for the omission. Because the negotiations for the purchase and the approval of the purchase were done so secretively, I can't help but look for some nefarious motive. Granted, given their track record, the omission of these provisions might innocently be attributed to incompetence. Also, given their track record, there may be some agenda upon which the omission serves some other purpose or fits into their future plans.
Perhaps a deep-thinker or strategist can come up with more plausible reasons, but here's some conjecture.
1. Labor unions traditionally support the democratic party. The workers in the ports are unionized. If documents relating to the business of running the ports are unavailable in a court battle or in negotiatoins, it diminishes the power of the unions.
2. Attorneys are a favorite target of the republican party. They don't like it when they are held responsible when they cause injury, damage or death. Attorneys give the "little guy" the power to fight the rich and powerful, and that pisses them off. Keeping the records out of litigation diminishes the power to hold them accountable.
3. There are plans to use the ports to ship cargo to other countries which the government does not want the public to know about. Imagine, being able to ship arms to Venezuelan rebels without a paper trail.
If you have any thoughts or plausible reasons that the Bush administration would negotiate these safeguards out of the purchase agreement, please let me know.
|
Source
Working on the premise that omission of these provisions was purposeful and not an oversight, it makes me wonder what was the motivation for the omission. Because the negotiations for the purchase and the approval of the purchase were done so secretively, I can't help but look for some nefarious motive. Granted, given their track record, the omission of these provisions might innocently be attributed to incompetence. Also, given their track record, there may be some agenda upon which the omission serves some other purpose or fits into their future plans.
Perhaps a deep-thinker or strategist can come up with more plausible reasons, but here's some conjecture.
1. Labor unions traditionally support the democratic party. The workers in the ports are unionized. If documents relating to the business of running the ports are unavailable in a court battle or in negotiatoins, it diminishes the power of the unions.
2. Attorneys are a favorite target of the republican party. They don't like it when they are held responsible when they cause injury, damage or death. Attorneys give the "little guy" the power to fight the rich and powerful, and that pisses them off. Keeping the records out of litigation diminishes the power to hold them accountable.
3. There are plans to use the ports to ship cargo to other countries which the government does not want the public to know about. Imagine, being able to ship arms to Venezuelan rebels without a paper trail.
If you have any thoughts or plausible reasons that the Bush administration would negotiate these safeguards out of the purchase agreement, please let me know.
