March 24, 2006

War of the Words: Control of US ports

By JAKOB KANE LOUKAS
jkl001@marietta.edu

“Red alert”--or maybe it’s orange or yellow. I’m not really sure, except I know to be afraid of the terrorists that are determined to kill us. Since 9/11, national security has been the top priority of our government. National security is so important that we have been instructed to ignore infringements on civil liberties, and just discussing whether or not policies like the Patriot Act, NSA wiretapping, and how long to stay in Iraq helps the terrorists win.

Our president might say that this article discourages the troops, but I’m just as concerned with national security as he is.  He and I just look at national security a little differently. I believe the freedom to debate and express ideas is exactly what our soldiers are fighting, for and the president’s deal allowing the United Arab Emirates to purchase the rights to our ports is another greedy, selfish scandal.  I’m proud that the American people have reacted so strongly in opposition to this scam. This is one of the first times that an overwhelming reaction from the American people has reinvigorated our nation’s democracy and prevented a dangerous mistake by this administration.

Port security is one of the least secure aspects of national security (Oh no!  I just helped the terrorists! Or maybe they don’t read the Marcolian, but instead do their own research, in which case plans to improve port security would help protect the nation), and selling ports to a potentially antagonistic nation would nor improve that security.  We should keep our ports in the hands of our allies so that we can improve port
security.

By KATIE SCWENDEMAN
kjs001@marietta.edu

Everyone in politics is screaming about the Ports Deal, or so it seems. Should the United Arab Emirates have management control over U.S. ports? President Bush seems to think so. How would it look to our Arab allies in the Middle East if we don't trust Arabs in America to manage our ports? Wouldn't that seem a little hypocritical? On the other hand, should we blindly let a group that is affiliated with the chaos of September 11 control an area that is vastly important to homeland security?

These are tough issues, which is why so many people are up in arms over this controversy. Since my job as a journalist is to be objective, (even though this is more of an opinion article), I can see both sides of this situation; however, I do feel that keeping ties with our allies in the Middle East seems to be the most pressing issue. It is our job to be responsible for the messages we communicate through our actions. We can't be telling our allies in the Middle East that we trust them and want to protect them if we aren't trusting our own Arabs at home. I'm not so naive to think that every Arab in America is pro-American, but terrorism can come in any package. Remember Timothy McVeigh? He was Caucasian, and looked as American as the next Joe Schmoe. Terrorist ideals don't have a preference for ethnicity.

*Here's a question to ponder: Why can't we control our own ports?