Firm sues to block foreign port takeover

AP/seattlepi ^ | February 18, 2006 | TED BRIDIS

[Cedar]

I hope many more Republicans (and Americans) will be questioning this.

The national security problem is specifically emphasized by this Miami port company. They should know what's involved better than most people, I would think.

[Txsleuth]

I have no doubt that they will...

I saw Ilena Ros-Lehtinen, a Rep from Florida today..and she is a Republican..and very well respected by Bush from what I have heard...and SHE was adamant about stopping this.

[Cedar]

Good news!

We may yet have the country a little longer. :)

[Cedar]

"DP World said it won approval from a secretive U.S. government panel that considers security risks of foreign companies buying or investing in American industry"


quote from Washington Post article

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/11/AR2006021101112.html


(the word "secretive" seemed needful of a post)

[right-wingin_It]

With 23 terrorists on the loose thanks last week thanks to Yemen. All states are to be scrutinized, including Dubai.

And since when does our government have the right to turn it it's port controll over to another government? I'm sure it's violating the constitution somewhere, just as a ton of other treaty derived sovernty give-aways probably do.

This is freakin crazy if this deal goes down, and we should be "putting the wood" to anyone on record for giving it the go ahead. I don't care how conservative (or pseudo-conservative) the pigs are.

[B4Ranch]

Thanks for an intelligent post. I agree with every word.

[Tulsa Ramjet]

"If the British Company can't sell to Dubai/UAE....they COULD sell to a Chinese firm..."

Why not Hamas? That is the exact point I wanted to make. Before we let capitalism with strategic points of interest, I would think our administration and lawmakers would want to look at this deal carefully. It would be like:
Hitler pre-1941: "What's the problem? Its a bona fide offer? Besides who else wants to regulate the English Channel?
British Statesman: "Well, he has a point. And it is a contract. Tell you what Adolph, we will send it to the Commons and see what they say."

[Tulsa Ramjet]

The British Company SOLD to the Dubai group...WE don't get the choice between the two..

Isn't there some law to regulate this?

[takenoprisoner]

"The port contract was already foreign-run, so the headline is false on its face. And this suit is against the British company and is purely a matter of contract law."

Not true according to the article.


"....may endanger the national security of the United States." It asked a judge to block the takeover and said it does not believe the company, Florida or the U.S. government can ensure Dubai Ports World's compliance with American security rules."

Reads like CS T offered much more than a simple contract violation to the judge as a reason to stop the sale.

[Dog Gone]

It's typical to throw everything, including the kitchen sink, into any complaint filed in a lawsuit. I don't think a Florida circuit court even has jurisdiction to hear that part of the allegation.

[DJ MacWoW]

but this is clearly a contract case and nothing more.

Not entirely.

The committee earlier agreed to consider concerns about the deal as expressed by a Miami-based company, Eller & Co., according to Eller's lawyer, Michael Kreitzer. Eller is a business partner with the British shipping giant but was not in the running to buy the ports company.

Dubai firm set to take charge of 6 U.S. ports

[Dog Gone]

Again, I was talking specifically about this lawsuit, not the overall policy decision or whether national security implications had been considered by anyone before the decision was made.

If this company has grounds to block the suit based on its partnership agreement with the British firm, a preferential right to purchase for example, or some requirement that its consent to the sale must first be obtained, that's fine. That's contract law.

[Txsleuth]

I have been on the Sunday Talk show thread all day...and this subject is very much a part of that thread...

I couldn't possibly repeat all of the great posts..or even post the dozens of links with articles about this subject.

Would you like me to ping you to that thread? I bet if you took the time to skim that thread, you will find a lot that will help you a LOT more than I can...

I have been learning a lot about this...

Let me know...okay?

[DoNotDivide]

A: Handover of the Panama Canal and American Ports to our enemies.

Q: What are a couple of really stupid American sellouts of Naitonal Security the last 2 decades?

[K-oneTexas]

Correct. Unfortunately that is just the external.

[DoNotDivide]

Did you see this?

[K-oneTexas]

Believe it or not, found that article while also reading this FR thread/article Brit Hume: Bush Will Reverse Ports Decision.

I'll say again the "port sale" and "the appointment of DU Exec" = smells!

[DoNotDivide]

Yes, it doesn't even approach passing the stinky diaper test.

[stylin19a]

Check this out:

"Last month, the White House appointed a senior DP World executive, David C. Sanborn of Virginia, to be the new administrator of the Maritime Administration of the Transportation Department. Sanborn worked as DP World's director of operations for Europe and Latin America."

[Cedar]

Thanks. I'm reading more about it now on the other threads.