Posted on 02/20/2006 7:28:25 AM PST by standingfirm
WASHINGTON — Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is defending the Bush administration's review of an international shipping deal two days after one company in the Port of Miami sued to prevent an Arab-owned firm from taking over port operations.
Meanwhile, lawmakers also are considering legislation to stop foreign-owned companies from running U.S. ports.
Chertoff on Sunday said the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, had carefully reviewed the Dubai Ports World purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which runs commercial operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
"We make sure there are assurances in place, in general, sufficient to satisfy us that the deal is appropriate from a national security standpoint," Chertoff told ABC's "This Week."
That doesn't sit well with Miami firm Continental Stevedoring & Terminals Inc., a subsidiary of Ellery & Company Inc. Representatives from that company asked a judge to block the takeover of P&O,
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
So what...let them leave. I'll bet they don't take any of their other investments out of the country...
How so?
Under the auspices of "National Security" via Homeland Security, I believe the Fed can retrain any such shananigans, or via an emergency executive order. Then there's always 'Eminent Domain.'
Child's play if need be.
"Nobody's going to pony up billions of dollars if there's even the slightest risk that the investment will be nationalized, either de jure or de facto, on top of our asinine tax and regulatory policies.)"
Billions of dollars to ensure a proper proprietorship (i.e. NON-MUSLIM) of U.S. ports is just common sense, good politics, and provide minimal security headaches.
Your logic has too many holes. If the Nazis had managed somehow during WW2 to purchase sensitive installations in the US we should still have let the deal go through to avoid risks that future potential companies might not "pony up"? It's Bush after all who calls himself a wartime president and claims to be fighting the very same elements that could easily infiltrate these ports and do us harm.
"So what...let them leave. I'll bet they don't take any of their other investments out of the country..."
They won't need to. All they'd need to do is walk off with the port infrastructure, and that would be more than enough to clobber the economy until it was replaced years later.
"How so?
"Under the auspices of "National Security" via Homeland Security, I believe the Fed can retrain any such shananigans, or via an emergency executive order. Then there's always 'Eminent Domain.'"
What was your take on the Kelo decision? Do you now view it as the shining diadem of Supreme Court jurisprudence?
"If the Nazis had managed somehow during WW2 to purchase sensitive installations in the US we should still have let the deal go through to avoid risks that future potential companies might not "pony up"?"
Please show me where we declared war on the United Arab Emirates--I must have missed the announcement.
This is helpful information and perspective as well...
We're not, that's why I specifically said hostile elements within the United Arab Emirates could infiltrate those ports, they exist and it would be naive to suggest they don't.
Is it your contention that Kelo was a National Security issue?
"And, I doubt, FDI will flee. There are too many other non-muslim coutries with lots of $$ to invest in the U.S."
Prohibiting foreign ownership of commercial entities is a "canary in the coal mine" warning of nationalization. Once you put the possibility of nationalization on the table, only the exceptionally stupid would invest--and that demographic tends to have very low purchasing power.
I started this thread because I am very concerned about this very thing.
We need to get the word out to the White House that a lot of us conservatives are NOT HAPPY with this port deal.
There is still time. But not much. Call/write your legislators. now.
"Is it your contention that Kelo was a National Security issue?"
ANYTHING can be made a "national security issue." All one needs is "well, we could tell you why, but then we'd have to kill you, but we do have a 1,000-page classified report, so you're going to have to trust us."
And Eminent Domain over those port facilities will be expensive as hell--on the order of billions--and you're still not going to have buyers on the other side of the deal, because nobody's going to commit billions of dollars on a deal that could get reversed on a political whim. You'd end up with the federal government running those ports--and doing so with all the efficiency of the DMV.
"We're not, that's why I specifically said hostile elements within the United Arab Emirates could infiltrate those ports, they exist and it would be naive to suggest they don't."
Well, hostile elements within the United States can infiltrate those ports--and they already have, it's called the Longshoreman's Union. Perhaps we should just close them down completely in the name of avoiding any and all risk.
Please demonstrate how "Islam -- Religion of Peace," whose Koran teaches hating the "infidel" AND the U.S., is to be entrusted to controlling access and security to several U.S ports.
"Please demonstrate how "Islam -- Religion of Peace," whose Koran teaches hating the "infidel" AND the U.S., is to be entrusted to controlling access and security to several U.S ports."
The Koran teaches hating the United States? Amazing. Mohammed could actually see 1,144 years into the future!
And the more Freepers dig, the nastier it gets. Courtesy of WatchingInAmazement
February 1999: Bin Laden Missile Strike Called Off for Fear of Hitting Persian Gulf Royalty
Intelligence reports foresee the presence of bin Laden at a desert hunting camp in Afghanistan for about a week. Information on his presence appears reliable, so preparations are made to target his location with cruise missiles. However, intelligence also puts an official aircraft of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and members of the royal family from that country in the same location. Bin Laden is hunting with the Emirati royals, as he did with leaders from the UAE and Saudi Arabia on other occasions (see 1995-2001). Policy makers are concerned that a strike might kill a prince or other senior officials, so the strike never happens. A top UAE official at the time denies that high-level officials are there, but evidence subsequently confirms their presence. [9/11 Commission Report, 3/24/04 (B)] People and organizations involved: Osama bin Laden
I have seen the defense – we are sure it won’t harm National Security.
I have not seen why the contracts were given to a foreign company over American companies.
Give it a rest please, I'm not in a union but the union bashing for the sake of it gets old after a while, especially when it somehow gets twisted as a justification to allow Middle Easterners to control the security of our ports. As if they're more desirable than American longshoreman.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.