Skip to comments.
Port Authority: We're suing to stop sale to Dubai firm
Newsday.com ^
| 2/13/2006
| KAREN MATTHEWS
Posted on 02/23/2006 12:30:50 PM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
TOPICS: Breaking News
KEYWORDS: dubai; hillaryclinton; panynj; portauthority; ports
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300, 301-320, 321-340 ... 721-723 next last
To: 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.
To: finnman69
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.
To: dcgard
If you mean the airport security analogy I got it the first time...it's just as stupid the second time around.
303
posted on
02/23/2006 2:05:34 PM PST
by
CWOJackson
(Tancredo? Wasn't he the bounty hunter in Star Wars?)
To: antaresequity
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....;)
304
posted on
02/23/2006 2:05:54 PM PST
by
joesnuffy
(A camel once bit our sister..but we knew just what to do...we gathered rocks and squashed her!)
To: TomasUSMC
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 Too many people are attributing either outdated statements or statements by individuals as current, official sanction.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
305
posted on
02/23/2006 2:06:36 PM PST
by
mnehring
(Perry 06- It's better than a hippie in a cowboy hat or a commie with blue hair.)
To: Alberta's Child
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!
306
posted on
02/23/2006 2:07:11 PM PST
by
BigSkyFreeper
(Proud to be a cotton-pickin' Republican on the GOP Plantation)
To: Canedawg
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.
307
posted on
02/23/2006 2:07:32 PM PST
by
CWOJackson
(Tancredo? Wasn't he the bounty hunter in Star Wars?)
To: jimbo123
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?
To: yellowdoghunter
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??
To: ohioWfan; BigSkyFreeper
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
310
posted on
02/23/2006 2:08:21 PM PST
by
Mo1
(Republicans protect Americans from Terrorists.. Democrats protect Terrorists from Americans)
To: CWOJackson
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.
311
posted on
02/23/2006 2:08:34 PM PST
by
dcgard
To: antaresequity
"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'.
312
posted on
02/23/2006 2:08:45 PM PST
by
TheCrusader
("The frenzy of the mohammedans has devastated the Churches of God" Pope Urban II ~ 1097A.D.)
To: Alberta's Child
"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.
313
posted on
02/23/2006 2:08:57 PM PST
by
notigar
To: ER Doc
after reading your last sentence .. I suggest you go find your meds
314
posted on
02/23/2006 2:09:58 PM PST
by
Mo1
(Republicans protect Americans from Terrorists.. Democrats protect Terrorists from Americans)
To: mnehrling
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;
To: dcgard
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.
316
posted on
02/23/2006 2:10:03 PM PST
by
CWOJackson
(Tancredo? Wasn't he the bounty hunter in Star Wars?)
To: OldFriend
"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?
317
posted on
02/23/2006 2:10:21 PM PST
by
TheCrusader
("The frenzy of the mohammedans has devastated the Churches of God" Pope Urban II ~ 1097A.D.)
To: BigSkyFreeper
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.
318
posted on
02/23/2006 2:11:06 PM PST
by
jackbenimble
(Import the third world, become the third world)
To: CWOJackson
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.
To: mnehrling
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.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300, 301-320, 321-340 ... 721-723 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson