Return to Transcripts main page
The Situation Room
Storm Over Ports; What is CSI?; New Terror Tape
Aired March 06, 2006 - 17:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: To our viewers, you're THE SITUATION ROOM, where news and information from around the world arrive at one place at the same time.
Happening now, it's 2:00 a.m. here in Dubai, the home port of the Arab company due to take over half a dozen American port operations. Can a Middle Eastern firm keep Americans safe? As the debate rages at home, we'll take you behind the scenes here for an exclusive look.
This is also a busy port of call for the United States' Navy. I'll visit one American vessel and speak with the officer commanding U.S. ships in a very dangerous region about their security precautions.
And it's 5:00 p.m. in Alexandria, Virginia, where the jury is seated, and so is Zacarias Moussaoui, as sentencing proceedings begin for the only person charged in the U.S. with crimes related to the 9/11 attacks.
I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
Welcome back. We're live in Dubai.
I had a chance to fly over the area today, and it's an extraordinary view. Picture a mix of Miami, New York, Disney World, Vegas, a booming metropolis. Dubai is perched right at the edge of the Arabian Desert on the Persian Gulf. It's an extremely busy port, as they say here, a crossroads between East and West. In many respects, the crown jewel in the federation known as the United Arab Emirates.
Dubai is an oil-rich city-state of more than a million people. The vast majority, foreigners, laborers living in desert camps, or wealthy expatriates who enjoy a life as luxurious as anywhere in the world.
The UAE has been a U.S. partner in the war on terror, but it was also a base for many of the hijackers who struck America on 9/11. Dubai's deepwater port is the center of world trade, and now, of course, Dubai is at the center of controversy, the controversy raging over who should run major American ports.
At issue, the almost $7 billion deal which would let Dubai Ports World take over a British company which now handles operations at six major U.S. ports. That means a state-owned Arab company would be in charge of commercial shipping at terminals in New York, Newark, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami and New Orleans.
While Congress and the Bush administration are squaring off over this deal, a British appeals court today gave a judicial green light, declining to hear a Miami company's objection to the takeover by Dubai Ports World.
Back in Washington today, the debate over the ports deal rages on as congressional critics say the takeover by a state-owned Arab firm could threaten U.S. security.
For our "Security Watch," let's go live to CNN Congressional Correspondent Ed -Henry -- Ed.
ED HENRY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, Republican Peter King, the powerful chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, tells CNN that the concerns about security, the complaints among Republicans up here on Capitol Hill about this port deal are growing. So that's why he has presented a new compromise planned in the White House with a warning. He says if they don't sign on, this whole contract may go down.
What he's proposing is that the American portion of this entire port contract be split and be taken out, separated from the rest of the contract so that basically Dubai Ports World would subcontract out control of the ports -- the six ports in the United States, to U.S. companies. So Dubai Ports World would not be running the operations here in the United States.
King says this would be a face-saving move. It would give the company the ability to still rake in profits but not control the security here in the United States. They still also would have the rest of the contract because just a tiny portion of it deals with U.S. ports.
King told CNN he warned the White House that the whole deal could go down if they do not sign on. He knows the company does not want to change the contract.
The White House, for its part, so far, is saying they will get back to Congressman King.
All this is happening because the pressure, political pressure growing on Republicans. Democrats really beating this as a political issue here in Washington.
In fact, Democrat Harold Ford Jr., running for a Senate seat in Tennessee, this -- just this past weekend revealed and released a campaign ad that he shot at the Port of Baltimore in Maryland, nowhere close to Tennessee, blasting the administration about this entire port deal. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid today declared that more Democratic candidates will be seizing on this issue because he claims it's resonating all across the United States.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), MINORITY LEADER: It's resonating because people have come to the realization that the Bush administration is basically incompetent. And I mentioned some of those things in my presentation to you a few minutes ago. This port security issue is stunning.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HENRY: And, in fact, it's giving Democrats a political opening to launch a broader assault on the White House about port security. Reid and other Democrats proposing that they pony up an extra $1.7 billion to secure the nation's ports -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Ed Henry on Capitol Hill.
Ed, thanks very much.
Should Dubai Ports World undergo some sort of makeover to make its ports takeover more palatable to the U.S. Congress? Should it bring in more Americans, for example, to help run things? I put that question to the company's CEO, Mohammed Sharaf.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MOHAMMED SHARAF, CEO, DUBAI PORTS WORLD: We already have American partners there. It's part of the P&O acquisition. They already have U.S. partners. So the question of bringing more U.S. partners does not arise.
BLITZER: You don't need any more American presence?
SHARAF: No. We do have -- and again, as partners, we have them. We consider the port authority as our partner because we need to work very closely with them because their security is our security. Our security is theirs.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Let's get some more now. We'll turn to our White House correspondent, Dana Bash.
Dana, what are you hearing from your vantage point about this controversial deal?
DANA BASH, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, CNN learned on Friday and then in more reporting over the weekend that there has been a flurry of activity going on behind the scenes about this issue, whether or not this company, DP World, is going to have to give in and make more changes to the way it operates in the United States in order to get this deal through.
Now, the CEO mentioned, as you just played, to you that their public stance is that they simply don't think that's necessary. However, a source involved in negotiations with the company and congressional leaders and the White House tell CNN that they have been delicately testing out the idea of changing the legal structure on the American side of the company. Now, what does that mean in layman's terms? A whole bunch of options, things like, perhaps, looking into a subsidiary in the United States, separating out the board of directors, even, perhaps, having an independent director. Those are some ideas being tossed out.
Now, as far as the White House is concerned, Wolf, they are being very careful in how they approach this, as they have been all along when these discussions are going on behind the scenes from their perspective to try to save this deal. A senior official tells us that they have been in discussions with the "Peter Kings of the world," trying to figure out the best way to save this, but they're being very careful not to directly pressure the company or the country because they want to maintain the perspective that they are simply supporting them.
But they are very much, it seems to me, open to this idea, but they're working through middlemen, and that is something that Peter King is going public with, this idea that perhaps this is something that they will have to do. But I've been warned by somebody close to the situation that, as you heard from the CEO, they are not there yet in terms of being convinced that this is necessary. But clearly, there's a flurry of activity to convince them -- Wolf.
BLITZER: And we're going to speak to Peter King coming up this hour.
Thanks, Dana, very much.
Earlier, I got an exclusive look at some of the high-tech security measures in place at these ports here in Dubai. Dubai Ports World trying to make the case that it can help keep American ports safe as well.
State-of-the-art scanners can virtually see through metal shipping containers, they can sniff out chemical and biological agents, and detect drugs, weapons and ammunition. Perhaps most important of all, they can detect nuclear equipment and radiation.
We're going to show you my entire behind-the-scenes visit. That's coming up in our 7:00 p.m. Eastern hour here in THE SITUATION ROOM. A report you'll see only here on CNN.
Those high-tech security measures I just showed you are subject to a post-9/11 U.S. Customs and Border Protection program called the Container Security Initiative, or CSI, as it's called.
Is CSI working? Our Internet reporter, Jacki Schechner, has more -- Jacki.
JACKI SCHECHNER, CNN INTERNET REPORTER: Wolf, that's right, it is called the Container Security Initiative, and it currently operates in 42 countries around the world. One of those ports is, in fact, Dubai in the United Arab Emirates.
The idea that U.S. Custom officials work in conjunction with local Dubai officials to identify what they call high-risk containers. They then use those non-invasive techniques to scan them, those things like high-tech radiation devices.
Now, is this working? That is the big question. The idea is to get to these things before they ever leave the foreign country and head to U.S. ports.
Well, the GAO, the Government Accountability Office, did a study, and they found two major problems with the program. One is that there's not enough staffing and a lot of those containers are not being identified. The other problem being that the devices they use have no technological standard, so you can't tell whether or not the radiation technology, those sorts of things, are actually working.
But Wolf, CSI tells us that they are actually taking these changes under advisement and they are making the appropriate adjustments.
BLITZER: Jacki, thanks very much.
We're going to have much more on the port story coming up. We're here in Dubai.
But in our CNN "Security Watch," a new tape believed to be from Osama bin Laden's and an increasing focus on what's being described as economic terrorism.
CNN's Brian Todd is joining us now live from Washington. He has some details -- Brian.
BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, on this tape, Ayman al- Zawahiri calls on his followers to make Western powers "bleed for years." And as you mentioned, he seems especially interested in making them bleed financially.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TODD (voice over): Experts believe Ayman al-Zawahiri likely made this tape before the attack on a Saudi oil processing terminal in late February. But they say his message touches a central al Qaeda strategy, keep hitting the West where its money is.
Al-Zawahiri tells followers to prevent the Western crusaders from stealing the Muslims' oil and makes reference to recent cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed.
AYMAN AL-ZAWAHIRI, AL QAEDA (through translator): They have the rights to invade our land, rob our wealth and then insult us.
TODD: Experts, including a former CIA deputy director and a former CIA analyst, say perhaps unwittingly, al-Zawahiri may actually be helping U.S. leaders readjust their focus in the war on terror.
JOHN MCLAUGHLIN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: At a time when we are spending a lot of energy worrying about how one of our best counterterrorism partners, the UAE, will manage some terminals at our ports, Zawahiri's statement may be a useful reminder that there could be some greater dangers out there to focus on. TODD: The tape offers proof that at least until a few weeks ago, al Qaeda's number two figure was alive, while two leaders hunting for him are quarreling. Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf telling Wolf Blitzer he is irate that Afghan president Hamid Karzai gave him intelligence on Taliban and al Qaeda leaders' whereabouts in Pakistan. Intelligence made public around the time of President Bush's visit. Intelligence that Musharraf says was outdated.
PERVEZ MUSHARRAF, PAKISTANI PRESIDENT: I am totally disappointed with their intelligence, and I feel there is a very, very deliberate attempt to malign Pakistan by some agents, and President Karzai is totally oblivious of what is happening in his own country.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TODD: Contacted by CNN, Afghanistan's ambassador to the U.S. says the intelligence was not outdated, that his government's intent was to help Musharraf's forces. And they believe the Pakistanis can do more to hunt al Qaeda and Taliban suspects along their common border.
One former top intelligence official says we shouldn't read too much into this dispute. Tensions have flared before among these two governments, and they'll likely do so again. But the timing of this argument was not great for perception coming on the heels of al- Zawahiri's message -- Wolf.
BLITZER: I've interviewed President Musharraf on several occasions, Brian, and he was irate yesterday when we spoke. He was in Rawalpindi.
Brian Todd reporting.
And to our viewers, please stay tuned to CNN day and night for the most reliable news about your security.
Let's go back to New York. Jack Cafferty is standing by -- Jack.
JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: Wolf, as you get ready to file your income taxes in a month or so, consider this: the government is about to run out of money. Again.
The current debt ceiling is $8.2 trillion. But the Treasury Department wants Congress to raise it, perhaps by as much as $781 billion.
Members of Congress now will go through the motions. They'll have something that they'll call a debate. And then in the end, they'll vote to push this country deeper into debt.
Less than a year and a half ago, less than a year and a half ago, Congress voted to raise the debt ceiling by $800 billion. This will be the fourth time since President Bush took office that Congress has been asked to raise the debt ceiling.
When President Clinton left office in 2000, there was a budget surplus that year of $230 billion, and that was the third year in a row that the government actually ran a surplus.
Here's the question: Should there be a limit to how far into debt the government is allowed to go?
E-mail us at caffertyfile@CNN.com, or you can go to CNN.com/caffertyfile -- Wolf.
BLITZER: You're going to get a ton of e-mail on this one, Jack. Thanks very much.
Jack will be back later this hour with some of that e-mail.
Up ahead, a CNN exclusive from here in Dubai. I'll speak with a top U.S. naval commander. He's in charge of several battleships here in the Persian Gulf. He's going to show us what kind of security precautions American ships use in these ports.
And the storm over the ports deal. We'll talk about it with one of the congressmen leading the charge against it, Peter King, and a former U.S. Army officer now retired. He's now here in Dubai with a business group. He disagrees with Peter King.
The controversy over gays in the military also coming up, and recruiting on college campuses. The U.S. Supreme Court weighing in today with a unanimous decision.
You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: I'm Wolf Blitzer.
We're reporting in THE SITUATION ROOM live from Dubai. Much more on our coverage of the ports controversy, but let's go back to Washington. CNN's John King once again with a closer look at some of the day's other news -- John.
JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, we'll get back to you in just a moment.
We want to look first, though, here at some developing stories, including the sentencing phase has just begun in the trial of the only person charged here in the United States in connection with the 9/11 terror attacks. Zacarias Moussaoui pleaded guilty to terror charges and faces either life in prison or the death penalty.
CNN Justice Correspondent Kelli Arena is live for us in Alexandria, Virginia, near the courthouse with the latest -- Kelli.
KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: John, Moussaoui set very quietly, defiantly staring at the jury as his lawyers and prosecutors laid out two entirely different scenarios about his involvement in the September 11 conspiracy.
The government's basic argument is that because Moussaoui lied when he was first taken into custody and did not tell investigators that he was an al Qaeda operative who intended to fly a plane into the White House, that he allowed the September 11 attacks to go forward in secret. Prosecutor Rob Spencer (ph) told jurors that Moussaoui's lies killed the 9/11 victims as surely as if he had been at the controls of one of the four planes that day.
Now, one of Moussaoui's defense attorneys, Ed McMahon, who gave opening statements today, painted an entirely different picture. He told jurors that Moussaoui did not know any specifics of the plot. And, in fact, he says that al Qaeda intentionally kept him away from the real hijackers because he was considered to be a headache and obnoxious, and in the words of one terrorist -- and I'm quoting here, John -- "cuckoo in the head."
McMahon told jurors that Moussaoui was a lousy pilot, that the government's argument was basically speculative, and that we'll never really know what Moussaoui would have done if he had not been taken into custody. In his closing statement, he told jurors, "Please, don't make him a hero. He just doesn't deserve it."
The jury, which is made up of 10 men and seven women, John, then heard from an FBI agent who basically gave them a history of al Qaeda, who Osama bin Laden is, why this organization has a jihad against the United States.
Also listening to all of what happened today were victims' family members. They were scattered in six different locations across the United States. Some here in the courtroom as well. They've been waiting a really long time for this -- John.
KING: Kelli Arena keeping track of what's a defining moment in this critical case.
Thank you, Kelli, in Alexandria, Virginia.
And listen to this. This one's raising eyebrows.
The Department of Homeland Security is confirming an account of sloppy handling of a suspicious white powder. The agency says its private security guards at its headquarters right here in Washington discovered an envelope with suspicious white powder. They took it outside and waved the powder into the air without evacuating people nearby.
They department confirmed this account after an Associated Press report. An official tells us he does not know exactly when this incident happened.
In Austria, the International Atomic Energy Agency is trying to decide how best to act on Iran's nuclear ambitions. The agency is hoping to find a solution before its board of governors votes to send the matter to the United Nations Security Council. At issue, Iran's program of uranium enrichment.
Iran says it wants to use nuclear power only to generate electricity, but the West, including the United States, alleges Iran has a different agenda, that it wants to build a nuclear weapon. And today in South Dakota, Republican Governor Mike Rounds signed a bill into law that bans almost all abortions in that state. The abortion ban does not allow exceptions for rape, incest or for the health of the mother.
It seems a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. Abortion supporters say they challenge that -- they will challenge that measure.
A heated legal argument. Also, Wolf, a heated political debate as the campaign here unfolds.
Now back to Wolf in Dubai.
BLITZER: Thanks very much, John.
Coming up, a leading critic of the ports deal. The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Peter King, he'll debate the issues at heart with a retired U.S. Army officer who's here in Dubai who strongly supports the deal.
Plus, how does the Navy keep its ships safe in the Persian Gulf? I'll ask a senior U.S. Navy officer. He's here in Dubai as well. It's an interview you will see only here on CNN.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Does the Dubai ports deal place too much emphasis on business? Does it place enough emphasis on security? Key questions in the debate.
Joining us here in Dubai is Kevin Massengill. He's a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel. He's with the Dubai American Business Group.
And joining us from New York is Congressman Peter King. He's the Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. He's been one of the leaders in the fight against this deal.
First of all, Congressman King, what about these suggestions that you might be open to some sort of compromise that would allow DP World to have ownership of these port operations, albeit with an American subsidiary or some American firm actually running the operations? What can you tell our viewers about that?
REP. PETER KING (R-NY), CHAIRMAN, HOMELAND SECURITY COMMITTEE: Well, I've had some preliminary discussions with the White House and with some other members of Congress, and what I had suggested as a possibility -- and again, it's just a possibility that I was putting out there -- that to satisfy the issue of security, that Dubai Ports would subcontract out the operation of the American ports to an American company.
I don't think a subsidiary will be satisfactory, but a separate American company could do it so long as there was no access to the information or to the operations at all by Dubai Ports. Dubai Ports could still be the contractor, but the actual work and access to everything would be controlled by a totally separate American company.
And again, I put that out there. I don't know exactly how far it's going to go. And I certainly can't speak for any of the leadership in the House of Representatives.
BLITZER: Let me ask Colonel Massengill how he thinks the Dubai Ports World might react to that kind of proposal.
What do you think, Colonel?
KEVIN MASSENGILL, DUBAI AMERICAN BUSINESS GROUP: Wolf, I'm not qualified to speak for DPW. What we don't want to do, though, is look like we can't tell the difference between our friends and our enemies. We don't want to look like we're slapping back at somebody who's been a good, trusted, reliable ally in this war on terror.
BLITZER: What about that, Congressman King? This country, the United Arab Emirates, according to General Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other top U.S. military commanders, they insist the UAE has been a strong ally in this war against terror and the U.S. doesn't want to alienate a country as important as this one is.
KING: There's no doubt that there has been a change since September 11 in the attitude and the policies of the UAE. And there's been quite a bit made public about the cooperation. There's also some information that's classified as to what they're doing.
So there's no doubt that, you know, the UAE has become a much better partner now than they were. But the fact is, prior to September 11, they were one of only three governments in the world to recognize the Taliban, members of the royal family did have a close social relationship with Osama bin Laden and supporters of al Qaeda. And my concern today is, since this is a government-owned company, where are those people?
Are the people who supported the Taliban and bin Laden, are they still in the government? How can we be sure that they would have no influence over the company or they don't have their own people working in parts of the company which would give them access to security and also give them access to internal port operations and also give them access to vulnerability assessments which they couldn't get otherwise?
I'm not doubting, you know, the top leadership of the company. What my concern is, people that working within the company, people within the government who just four and a half years ago were allied with our sworn enemy.
BLITZER: All right.
What about that, Colonel? Those are -- those are reasonable questions.
MASSENGILL: Absolutely. They're very good questions.
Wolf, the answer to that is, none of us want to be judged by the way we acted prior to 9/11. That was the watershed event. And all of us recognize now, in hindsight, that there was more we could have done, better ways we could have been prepared.
BLITZER: So what you're saying is that, yes, the UAE made plenty of mistakes before 9/11...
MASSENGILL: As we all did.
BLITZER: ... but they've changed their ways.
MASSENGILL: Correct.
BLITZER: But there's legitimate concern that Congressman King and other critics are raising to make sure that that's the case, because, at least on the surface, that appears to be the case, but, behind the scenes, are you 100 percent confident that there are no links to terror among senior officials here?
MASSENGILL: Absolutely. Correct.
Twenty-five thousand of us live here, raise our kids here. I have worked with them for a long time, both in uniform and out of uniform, watched them put boots on the ground. They have got soldiers in the ground right now in Afghanistan. They put boots on the ground in Baghdad, when they put in hospitals and clinics, before we even cleared the city.
BLITZER: How do you accept the fact, though, that 66 percent of the American public -- according to our most recent poll -- 66 percent oppose this deal; only 17 percent think it's a good idea?
MASSENGILL: A professor of mine, Bernard Lewis (ph), once made the comment that he thought most of Americans weren't entirely convinced the rest of the world existed.
The best way I can say that is that, for the average American, all they hear is that Arab Muslims attacked us. Now an Arab Muslim company is going to somehow have control of the port. You make that linkage in that front -- in that -- in that fashion, it's reasonable to say, this seems reckless; this seems unreasonable.
The better analogy is to say, I'm an American. I'm a veteran and a Christian. So was Tim McVeigh. We should not all paint everybody because of the actions of a few.
BLITZER: All right, let me let Congressman King respond to those points.
What do you think about them, Congressman?
KING: We're not talking about any Arab Muslim country. We're not talking about Jordan. We're not talking about Morocco. We -- but we are talking about a country which was one of only three in the entire world who had supported the Taliban.
And it's not just a question of making a mistake. I mean, the Taliban were among the most aggressive, totalitarian, brutal governments in the world. And the UAE felt comfortable enough to support them. They were funneling money to them. They were also close to bin Laden. This was after bin Laden had declared war on the United States. So, it's not like a question of picking the Mets over the Yankees, or the Democrats over the Republicans.
We're talking about, they had allied themselves with brutal murderers. And, so, that's not just a mistake. That's really a -- a mistake of morality, not of judgment. I mean, that's a -- that's a terrible moral error they made.
MASSENGILL: Congressman, with all due respect...
KING: And if those people are still...
MASSENGILL: ... that is...
KING: Yes.
MASSENGILL: Congressman, with all due respect, that's an unfair characterization.
When you say "they," you're treating them as a unitary actor, as though there was one actor. It's not a fair characterization. And the way we judge them now is by what they're doing now in this fight today, first to put money into Hamid Karzai's government, first to put boots on the ground with us in the fight, with soldiers getting maimed, in harm's way, with us every day.
It matters. It counts. And it's important for us to be able to tell the difference between our friends and our enemies, sir.
BLITZER: All right, very quickly, Congressman...
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: ... I will give you the last word. Go ahead.
KING: Now, when I said "they," I'm talking about, the official government of the United Arab Emirates supported the Taliban, and the royal family supported al Qaeda. Many of those people are still there.
And just -- I -- I agree, they made a strategic decision after September 11. But those who were guilty of what I consider immoral action before September 11 are still there. What influence do they have? That's the real concern that I have.
BLITZER: Congressman Peter King, we will continue this debate down the road. Thanks very much for joining us. And...
KING: Thank you, Wolf.
BLITZER: And retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Kevin Massengill, thanks to you, as well...
MASSENGILL: Thank you, Wolf.
BLITZER: ... for joining us.
Coming up, my exclusive interview with a top U.S. Naval officer who deals in this part of the world, the Persian Gulf. He will show us the kinds of security precautions the U.S. Navy is taking right now in Dubai.
And, later, in our 7:00 p.m. Eastern hour, a different look at Dubai -- from the skies. It's a one-of-a-kind tour you won't want to miss. It's coming up, right here in THE SITUATION ROOM. I flew over this city in a chopper.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back. I'm Wolf Blitzer, reporting tonight from Dubai here in the Persian Gulf.
The United Arab Emirates is one of the most visited ports of call for the United States Navy. Earlier today, in a CNN exclusive, I paid a visit on U.S. Navy Captain Thomas Goodwin. He's a top Navy commodore here in the Persian Gulf region. I spoke with him at the berth for a U.S. Navy Aegis cruiser. It's docked at the Port of Dubai.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: It's quite a little operation you have got over here.
How secure do you feel, as -- as we get a sense of the U.S. Navy presence that occasionally comes in here?
CAPTAIN THOMAS GOODWIN, U.S. NAVY: Well, Wolf, as you know, security is kind of a -- and a feeling of safety is kind of a relative thing.
If you look around here, pretty populated with U.S. Navy ships, military sealift command ships. I feel very safe here. I know the crews and the people who are stationed down here in the UAE feel very safe here as well.
BLITZER: How often do U.S. Navy vessels come to Dubai?
GOODWIN: If you look at fiscal year 2005, and you start counting from 1 October of 2004, and you stop with September 30 of 2005, we have had -- the U.S. government's had U.S. ships in port on 203 different -- excuse me -- 203 ship visits, for a total of 502 port visits.
So, on a daily basis, there is at least one U.S. ship in a port in the UAE, and, oftentimes, more than that, as you can see in the port here behind me. BLITZER: And they will spend a day, or two, or three, or whatever?
GOODWIN: Typically -- typically, a warship will come in here for -- for a visit, re-provisioning of food and fuel. And they will get back under way.
Jebel Ali is -- it's where we -- here, now here in the United Arab Emirates, and the Emirates, of Dubai, seems to be at the top of the port visit request list for -- for warships.
BLITZER: Can they accommodate carriers, too?
GOODWIN: They can accommodate a carrier here. And, as a matter of fact, it's probably the only -- other than -- well, it is the only port in the AOR and -- can accommodate a carrier.
BLITZER: That -- Bahrain can obviously accommodate a carrier.
GOODWIN: A carrier in Bahrain anchors out. Pier-side space is not available. The depth of the water is not sufficient to support that.
BLITZER: But -- but it can handle it here?
GOODWIN: It can handle it here.
BLITZER: Now, who provides the services? When a U.S. Navy vessel comes in here, Dubai Ports World, I take it, helps you guys, or is the -- is the port operator.
GOODWIN: In fact, it is.
United Arab Emirates -- it's Dubai Ports World -- they own the territory. This is their home territory. We work hand in glove with Dubai Ports World for services, and to provide fuel, logistics, and everything that a warship or another logistics ship would need here, absolutely.
BLITZER: And how do they do? How is the receptivity? What do you -- what do you -- what -- what kind of grade would you give them when you come here to Dubai?
GOODWIN: If I put them on a grading scale, like you're back in college or something like that, I would have to give them at least an A-plus.
BLITZER: Really?
GOODWIN: Absolutely.
They have done everything that we have asked of them. They have bent over backwards on many, many occasions. And, as you well know, U.S. Navy is driven by kind of a reactionary operational-type scheme.
And, oftentimes, our plan changes, and that causes a lot of perturbations down here in Dubai, in the Jebel Ali port, and the port authority has bent over backwards to accommodate us on almost every request. There is never going to be 100 percent of the time that you get what you ask for, but they have bent over backwards for a very demanding customer. And that's us, the U.S. Navy.
BLITZER: So, as far as you're concerned, the relationship between the U.S. and the UAE is pretty good?
GOODWIN: I think it's excellent.
BLITZER: From a practical U.S. Navy perspective, in other words, the kind of support, assistance you need, cooperation, it's pretty good?
GOODWIN: Oh, absolutely. They have been -- they have been a fully engaged full partner in our efforts here with the U.S. Navy and, generally, military-wide.
They have been a partner in the global war on terrorism. They have been a partner in the normal, everyday operations of the -- the 5th Fleet. And, again, as you see behind us, it's -- it's -- it's the most popular port in this region.
BLITZER: And it's a pretty sophisticated port, too?
GOODWIN: It's a very sophisticated port.
BLITZER: Security -- how tight is security? Or how good is security here? How comfortable do you feel?
GOODWIN: I feel very comfortable. If you will look around, again, U.S. Navy is in charge of their own security.
BLITZER: Now, what does that mean, when you say the U.S. Navy is in charge? Like, these little vessels are...
GOODWIN: If you take a look around here, we have got some of the small boat -- small boat -- the small vessels tied up, as part of the force protection and security apparatus here in the port.
They will go waterborne and protect waterside security. And, if you look around, the U.S. Navy is in charge of this area, which is sectioned off for the U.S. Navy and coalition ships when they come in.
BLITZER: Because a lot of us remember the USS Cole.
GOODWIN: That is correct.
BLITZER: And, so, you -- you -- you -- that's very much on your mind?
GOODWIN: Very much on our mind, absolutely, everybody.
BLITZER: And, so, you -- you -- you work together with the UAE to make sure that could never happen?
GOODWIN: Absolutely. Absolutely.
BLITZER: So, it's a pretty good operation? I -- I guess it's a good story to tell.
GOODWIN: It's absolutely a good story to tell.
And I think, again, for the people back home, again, just -- just think about this for one moment here. And it's a foreign port for us in America, all right? But you're here. And, every day, every day, there is a U.S. ship in a port in the UAE, either here in Jebel Ali, or in Dubai, or in Fujairah, which is on the open ocean side of the Straits of Hormuz.
BLITZER: And the same receptivity you get here in -- as in Dubai, you get in the other ports?
GOODWIN: Absolutely. Absolutely.
Dubai Ports World runs the -- the port in Fujairah. They run the port here in Jebel Ali, and, obviously, in Dubai.
BLITZER: No problems with Dubai Ports World?
GOODWIN: None at all. They have been a master partner in this effort.
BLITZER: Thanks very much.
GOODWIN: Thank you, sir.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: U.S. Navy Captain Thomas Goodwin, speaking with me here in the Port of Dubai earlier today.
Let's go to New York -- Lou Dobbs getting ready for his program. That begins at the top of the hour.
Lou, what are you working on?
LOU DOBBS, HOST, "LOU DOBBS TONIGHT": Wolf, thank you very much.
Coming up here at 6:00 p.m. Eastern, we will be talking about the ports here at home. The Dubai Ports World deal has many of our lawmakers on Capitol Hill calling for reform of the committee that approved this deal. But, not surprisingly, lobbyists have entered the picture. They're fighting against any change on the -- to the Committee on Foreign Investment, a committee they say works just fine. We will have a special report on why lobbyists are trying so hard to keep a committee working that often doesn't work. We will have that story.
And Senator Richard Shelby, the chairman of the powerful Senate Banking Committee, is our guest here. He will tell us why this deal should not go through and why everything in this country should not be for sale. Also tonight, we will take a first look at a new government report that proves President Bush's guest-worker program is unworkable.
We will hope you will be with us for that and a great deal more, coming up at the top of the hour here on CNN -- Wolf, back to you.
BLITZER: Thanks very much, Lou. We will be watching.
Still to come, Dubai from the air -- an overview of this bustling port city that may be quite different than you would imagine. It's a tour you will see only here on CNN. It's coming up in our 7:00 p.m. Eastern hour of THE SITUATION ROOM.
And the U.S. Supreme Court hands a victory to the U.S. military, and the ruling will be felt on college campuses across the country. We're going to tell you what was at stake and what was -- what was decided.
You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: I'm Wolf Blitzer, reporting from Dubai. More live coverage from the United Arab Emirates, that's coming up in just a few moments.
First, though, let's check in with CNN's John King once again for a quick look at some other stories making news -- John.
JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, back to you in just a few minutes.
We want to tell you about a major court decision affecting the nation's colleges and universities, though -- at the heart of the matter, federal funds, First Amendment rights, and the military's don't ask/don't tell policy on gays.
CNN's Mary Snow is in New York at New York University with the details -- Mary.
MARY SNOW, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, John, faculty from NYU Law School joined members of about 35 law schools across the country in this legal battle, a battle that has competing questions of government spending and free speech.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(SINGING)
SNOW (voice-over): The military said it was the target of discrimination, not treated like every other recruiter. And colleges were told they would pay a price, loss of federal funding if military recruiters weren't allowed on campus.
JAY SEKULOW, CHIEF COUNSEL, AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE: We think it's important for military recruiters to be able to attract the brightest and the best. And the only way to do that is get on the campuses of these universities, which, now, they will be able to do.
SNOW: But some law schools argued, it would be discriminatory to allow recruiters on campus because of a policy that bans openly gay members of the military.
PROFESSOR CHAI FELDBLUM, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL: Law schools, which spend a lot of money helping their law students get legal jobs, have a policy of not actively assisting any employer that has a discriminatory employment policy.
SNOW: The high court was clear in its unanimous ruling that the Pentagon should be allowed on campus. In his first major opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, "Accommodating the military's message does not affect the law school's speech, because the schools are not speaking when they host interviews and recruiting receptions."
The court ruled that universities can bar recruiters, but, if they do, they could potentially be shut out of federal funds, funds totalling about $35 billion a year nationwide.
SEKULOW: If they're going to take the dollars from the federal government, then the federal government has the right to have its military recruiters on campus.
SNOW: Some law schools say they still have a right to speak out against the military's policy.
FELDBLUM: I take this Supreme Court's opinion as a call to arms to administrations and faculties across the country to, in fact, convey a message of justice, that they don't agree with the policy of don't ask/don't tell.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SNOW: And the Defense Department issued a statement today, saying that it is not looking for special treatment, but that it wanted to be on an even playing field when it came to recruiting -- John.
KING: Campus military reallying, abortion -- the new Bush court off to quite the interesting controversial start.
Mary Snow, live for us at NYU -- thank you very much, Mary.
And, up ahead, much more of Wolf live from Dubai -- the behind- the-scenes visit you can see only here on CNN.
And Wolf will take you inside the high-tech world of port security, where scanners are used to detect chemical, biological, even nuclear threats. That's in the 7:00 p.m. Eastern hour of THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) KING: AT&T says it expects to cut up to 10,000 jobs by 2009, following news of a $67 billion bid for BellSouth. AT&T says the deal will help it provide better services, including faster broadband service. But some consumers feel they may end up footing part of the bill.
For more, let's go to our Internet reporter, Jacki Schechner -- Jacki.
SCHECHNER: Well, John, what's interesting is that one of the ways that you may end up paying for it is something like a tiered pay- for-content service. Think mail vs. priority mail.
This is something that big telecoms, like AT&T and BellSouth, like. And, if they merge together, they will be one company, pushing for this sort of legislation or this sort of Internet content providing.
It works very well for things like movies, high-density downloads. The bottom line is, you pay to get this kind of content faster. There are some people who say, this is good for the free market; it's a good way for people to make money.
There are other companies, like eBay, that says this is really bad for Internet users; it's bad for corporations; it's bad for anybody trying to do business in today's economy. And Senator Wyden has even introduced a bill called the Net Neutrality Bill that's going to try to keep this all a level playing field.
So, it is not going to happen immediately, John, but it's something to definitely keep our eyes on.
KING: It seems AT&T is growing again. Jacki Schechner, thank you very much.
And now back to Wolf Blitzer, who I guess is in the land of Dubai telecom -- Wolf.
(LAUGHTER)
BLITZER: That's -- something like that John.
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: John, thanks very much.
Up next, more of our exclusive live coverage of the ports controversy from Dubai.
And this note -- coming up tonight, in our 7:00 p.m. Eastern hour, Dubai from the sky. We're going to take you on an aerial tour of this incredibly rapidly growing and robust Arab capital.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) BLITZER: From Dubai to New York, let's go to Jack Cafferty once again -- Jack.
CAFFERTY: Wolf, thank you.
The federal government's about to run out of money -- again -- the current debt ceiling, $8.2 trillion. The Treasury Department's asking Congress to raise it. It would be the fourth time since President Bush took office. This time, they want another $781 billion.
The question is, should there be a limit on how far into debt the federal government can go?
Duh.
Eileen writes: "Wake up, America. The borrow-and-spend Congress is bankrupting the country. They don't seem to care how much debt they pile on to our children and grandchildren. The fact that they keep getting elected tells me, the American people don't seem to care either."
Ed in Kingston, Rhode Island: "The answer to your question is simple. The savings rate for the majority of Americans, along with credit card debt, etcetera, is on the same line as our present-day government. Enough said."
Allan in Burlington, Kansas -- I like this -- "In my home, we do not spend one dime for bridges to nowhere or birdshot, until we have a balanced budget."
Lars in Alexandria, Virginia: "Of course we should limit the government's debt levels. I understand the need for some national debt, but I'm beginning to feel like the administration is a teenager using daddy's credit card, and, in the case of the war, not bothering to keep the receipts."
Dwight in Dallas writes: "The larger question is, when will Americans wake up to the fact that taxes must go up now, and not later? We need a national credit counseling course.'
David in Athens, Texas: "Ross Perot went on a rant over the $4 trillion national debt in 1992 -- people ridiculed him. Now the debt is twice that, and people are still electing the same old Republican and Democrat hacks. Nothing is going to change until we throw the bums out" -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Jack, I'm going to be interviewing top officials here in the United Arab Emirates tomorrow. Is there any one question you think you -- I -- I should be asking these officials?
CAFFERTY: Yes.
Ask them how the nuclear proliferation that was so widely reported got through all that tight security over there.
BLITZER: Fair question.
Jack Cafferty, thanks very much. We will see you in the next hour, one hour from now.
Coming up, much more of our live coverage from Dubai -- we're going to speak to the CEO of Dubai Ports World. It's an interview you will see only here on CNN.
Until then, thanks very much for joining us. I'm Wolf Blitzer, reporting from Dubai.
"LOU DOBBS TONIGHT" starts right now.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
