Port Authority: We're suing to stop sale to Dubai firm

Newsday.com ^ | 2/13/2006 | KAREN MATTHEWS

[ARCADIA]

NEW YORK -- The Port Authority said Thursday it will file suit to block a Dubai-based firm from taking over operations at a Port Newark container terminal, saying the federal government has not given them assurances about security issues.

[Alberta's Child]

. . . would file a lawsuit later Thursday or Friday in New Jersey's Essex County state court.

For one thing, a New Jersey state court has no jurisdiction to hear the case. Secondly (for anyone who doesn't know this already) -- if New Jersey's legal track record is any indication, there's a good chance that the state judge hearing this case can't even read or write anyway.

[OldFriend]

Yup. No more SeaLand Service. Kind of sad but then that is the way of the world.

They moved from Port Elizabeth shortly after I left.

Even back then, watching the stuff the unions pulled was so infuriating.

[CWOJackson]

If you mean the airport security analogy I got it the first time...it's just as stupid the second time around.

[joesnuffy]

Yeah..the next thing ya know the rag heads will be buying up all the gas stations and charging us through the nose for gas,diesel and jet fuel...and converting our USDs into terror funding...

Or building mosques,and Islamic Centers and buying up huge tracts of rural property for terrorist training camps..

We've got to put a stop to it before its too late....;)

[mnehring]

If they've become so progressive after 9/11, why doesn't the UAE recognize Israel's right to exist?

Because this line is as false as the line that this is a 'port sale'. Israel has been in talks with the UAE for several years and have had diplomatic ties with the UAE since 2004. Too many people are attributing either outdated statements or statements by individuals as current, official sanction.
http://www.somethingjewish.co.uk/articles/1027_israel_talks_to_uae.htm

[BigSkyFreeper]

if New Jersey's legal track record is any indication, there's a good chance that the state judge hearing this case can't even read or write anyway.

ROFL!

[CWOJackson]

LOL! They will operate commercial concerns within a port, just like Saudi Arabia currently does right now.

They will have no control over security...and yes, when you make silly comparisons to airport security, you are being very dense.

[OldFriend]

I suspect the Taliban were supported because they threw the Soviets out of Afghanistan.

Same reason we supported Iraq over Iran. Can you say hostages?

Why are there so many Americans who do not support Israel's right to exist. Can you say buchanan?

[Txsleuth]

A poster on another thread put it this way...

A whole lot of countries want us to recognize Castro..and we don't...

So...maybe it isn't the make it/take it selling point that you want it to be...but, that doesn't mean that in the future they might not.

Remember, they backed the Taliban before 9/11 and changed...whose to say they won't change about Israel??

[Mo1]

It's ignorance Mo. They think they're going to lose their jobs, but none of those things change. They're being told lies by their bosses.

I know their jobs are secure .. I'm talking about the Union itself

I'm just trying to narrow down and figure out was the libs/dems are really up to

Because it sure doesn't have anything to do with national security

Because if they were soooo damn concerned ... they wouldn't be leaking classified information to the NYT and WP

[dcgard]

Bahh...won't even bother with you...seems 50% of your posts are bashing others with a couple witty one-liners. If it makes you feel smart, then as you were.

[TheCrusader]

"In all cases (6 ports), what is being transfered are lease agreements and infrastructure developement (cranes, container lifts, dollies, mules...) In all cases the cargo handling capacity is a fraction of all of the terminals in the port."

What's being 'transferred' is the legal rights to operate and control all the shipping terminals at six of our eastern seaports.

I stated in a post yesterday that the UAE's newly acquired company, P & O, will soon be hiring new personnel, dock workers and company security workers from subsidaries and sub-contractors. This is how these big maritime operations work.
I read today on FR that they have already begun that process. These type of ports have many foreignors working for them, hired without government background checks. The maritime companies themselves do the background checks, nice huh? In the maritime/shipping industry these ports are called "landlord" ports, I believe Newark is one of them.

I'm not believing any of the spin coming the WH on this thing. This is a national security risk being taken in the name of purchasing an 'ally'.

[notigar]

"there's a good chance that the state judge hearing this case can't even read or write anyway."

I'm sure he can write BOMB.

[Mo1]

after reading your last sentence .. I suggest you go find your meds

[Freedom is eternally right]

Interesting. This section seems to apply in this case: 2.13.4 no steps having been taken which are reasonably likely to result in the withdrawal, cancellation, termination or material modification of any licence held by any member of the wider P&O Group which is material in the context of the wider P&O Group taken as a whole;

[CWOJackson]

LOL! 100% of my posts are dealing with facts...of course you would find that objectionable. And if you think that airport security analogy is smart it is time for you to move on.

[TheCrusader]

"I do not consider the deal to be a mistake"

It's already a mistake. It's split the republican party; has it been worth it so far just to make some sheiks from the UAE happy?

[jackbenimble]

So do I. Starting with the intervention of Congress. If they intervene, they will have stuck the taxpayers with the $6.8 Billion pricetag offered by P&O.

Probably a lot less than that. See my post #268. PSA would take it off our hands for $6.4 billion and then we would have a Singapore based company running things.

[Barney1995]

Well, DoD and Homeland Security are part of the administration and poor Rummy seems to have been left out of the loop, as he admitted yesterday. As for Chertoff, the facts speak for themselves. I am neither for nor against this, but I agree that the fact that two of the 9/11 hijackers came from this nation should certainly raise a red flag and that Hastert is right that more investigation is warranted before this is a done deal.

[Eagles Talon IV]

Not a single American company bid on this contract. If it weren't these folks it would more then likely be the CHICOMS. I see little difference as far as security issues are concerned.