Asked at the Danville Library
Do you think it’s wise to turn over the management and operations of six major U.S. ports to a state-owned Arab company?
Mitzi Devlin, mom: No, it’s not a good idea. It would be a security risk, especially at our seaports, which are already vulnerable. It’s just another way for possible terrorists to make their way into our country.
Janine Seeds, tax consultant: No. If we own the ports we should be able to take care of them ourselves. Their managing style would be used on a daily basis. In the case of an emergency, they might not respond the way we would want. I would like to know if the operations would be staffed with Arab citizens or American citizens.
David Hall, retired: According to some academics, there is no security risk. But Barbara Boxer says it’s written in the contract that the Arab company will handle security. We have out-sourced this type of work to foreign countries in the past. I think the approval process went through too fast. But, I understand that we have good relations with the United Arab Emirates. It troubles me that Homeland Security has ignored the ports and rail system leaving them very vulnerable to attack.
Larry Ryan, sales: Oh, that’s an easy one. Absolutely not! First of all, it should go to an American company. Secondly, to give this work to the United Arab Emirates makes no sense at all because of the security risk. I think it very strange that the President didn’t know about this until after the deal was made.
Lynnette Lewis, customer service: No! We are setting ourselves up for another terrorist attack. It should go to an American company. If we are trying to prove we are not hostile to the Arabs, it will just backfire. Based on history, I don’t trust them and I’m sure they don’t trust us.
–compiled by Judy Steiner
