Helen Delich Bentley, who as a former Administrator of the Federal Maritime Administration presumably ought to know, says that the contracts held by P&O (and which will be held by Dubai Ports World if the sale goes through) have no security implications at all, because security isn't part of that job.
But Clark Kent Erwin, who as a former Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security presumably ought to know, says that those contracts involve making and carrying out security plans and hiring security personnel.
A good reporter ought to be able to resolve this question with a day of phone calls and a day on site at one of the ports. Don't hold your breath.
The high political salience of this question — if Erwin's view is correct, the Bush Administration's claim to competence in protecting the national security is pretty much toast — ought to make it more likely that the necessary reporting will be done. Alas, the actual effect is probably the opposite. Finding either answer to such a controverted question wouldn't seem "objective." So instead a central question either gets ignored entirely — most of the stories so far seem to assume that the contracts are security-sensitive and that the only question is whether the government of the United Arab Emirates wears a black hat or a white hat — or given the "A said X but B said Y" treatment.
I won't weep if George W. Bush gets a black eye he doesn't really deserve. But I'd really like to know whether the proposed deal will in fact put the country's security in the hands of the UAE.