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 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 721-723 next last
To: Peach
See my comment I just left on this thread.(((yawn)))
61
posted on
02/23/2006 12:54:00 PM PST
by
Willie Green
(Go Pat Go!!!)
To: OldFriend
Putting our safety in the hands of unions has already proven to be a mistake
If you are referring to the Civil War then I agree; The Federal government has entrenched itself to deeply in the affairs of the individual states.
62
posted on
02/23/2006 12:54:40 PM PST
by
ARCADIA
(Abuse of power comes as no surprise)
To: Willie Green
Why are you being rude? I was pinged to the thread and I let the pingee know I'd just seen the article.
63
posted on
02/23/2006 12:54:43 PM PST
by
Peach
To: ex-Texan
Not true. A federal lawsuit will stop the transaction.
A federal lawsuit cannot stop P&O from being acquired by DPI. That is a foreign transaction. The only thing a federal lawsuit can stop is how those companies operate in the US. A foreign purchase of another foreign company is outside US jurisdiction. A court could go so far as to cancel current contracts with P&O for operations, however, P&O or DPI (depending on when the deal closes in relation to any court order) could then take the matter back to court suing to keep existing contracts intact.
You then could have a court issuing an injunction against P&O or DPI, suspending operations in the US until the issue is resolved...
64
posted on
02/23/2006 12:54:54 PM PST
by
mnehring
(Perry 06- It's better than a hippie in a cowboy hat or a commie with blue hair.)
To: ARCADIA
If all is as the Administration says, a delay should not matter much and the concerns can be addressed.
We need to take this out of the news and not allow the Dems to build on it to erode Republicans' image on national security.
65
posted on
02/23/2006 12:55:02 PM PST
by
tomahawk
(Proud to be an enemy of Islam)
To: Shermy
Rush's original argument was that it was a good deal because Dubai had a bunch of shiny skyscrapers and golf courses and we would be really impressed if we went there.
It was interesting that Rush has neglected to mention throughout this whole deal that one of their nationals of this nation of shiny skyscrapers flew a jet into the WTC south tower on 9/11.
66
posted on
02/23/2006 12:56:11 PM PST
by
jimbo123
To: Shermy; doc30
Rush is making himself look like a fool. If this were Clinton trying to pull such a stunt the man would be having heart attacks on the show.
To: AlaskaErik
Chuckie will take whatever side of a position he can best exploit for Chuckie. That's true enough. But few base their opinion on what Schmuckie says.
68
posted on
02/23/2006 12:56:31 PM PST
by
DJ MacWoW
(If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
To: ARCADIA
Good.
From another story on the same subject:
Mr. Coscia wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff asking for details about how the federal government determined it was safe to allow Dubai Ports World, a state-run firm out of the United Arab Emirates, to buy a British company now doing business at the terminal.
And from another story:
At the mention of the Bush administration's approval of the sale of port operations to a Dubai-based company, longshoremen, truck drivers, mechanics and waitresses gushed with harsh words.
"Horrendous. Scary and horrendous," said Tom DiDomenico, a longshoreman from East Hanover, uttering one of the few printable reactions by customers at the Port Eatery on Corbin Street in Newark. "I'm a big Republican and I think Bush has lost his mind."
To: jimbo123
It was interesting that Rush has neglected to mention throughout this whole deal that one of their nationals of this nation of shiny skyscrapers flew a jet into the WTC south tower on 9/11 As you neglect that the home country(UK) of the company that currently operates the container terminals, gave us richard reid, the shoe bomber.
70
posted on
02/23/2006 12:58:40 PM PST
by
Dane
( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
To: mnehrling
There is nothing to worry about because the Port has no standing to prevent or reverse the deal. None whatsoever. Even if they find a sympathetic judge, they wont be able to get past the anti-trust aspect of it all. You cannot prevent one business to do business on the ports and allow others. There is nothing to this, and they will be slapped down hard.
71
posted on
02/23/2006 12:59:06 PM PST
by
Pukin Dog
(Sans Reproache)
To: antaresequity
Thanks for posting. I've been looking for FACTS since this story surfaced, Could you provide bonified sources for the FACTS? Thanks in advance.
72
posted on
02/23/2006 12:59:22 PM PST
by
afnamvet
(CONGRESS.SYS corrupted; Reformat WASH_DC (Y/N)?)
To: Reagan Man
No, that's not the case. We've just researched the issue.
73
posted on
02/23/2006 12:59:25 PM PST
by
jess35
To: Reagan Man
I trust Sen. Coburn far more than I trust Pres. Bush.
74
posted on
02/23/2006 12:59:26 PM PST
by
tomahawk
(Proud to be an enemy of Islam)
To: tumblindice
Then the Port Authority has the ability to threaten to terminate the leasing agreement if the sale goes through, but how is a New York or New Jersey court going to place an injunction on a British transaction?
75
posted on
02/23/2006 12:59:39 PM PST
by
Yo-Yo
To: Dane
The UK is also in the process of turning over some of their own commerical port operations to...DP World.
76
posted on
02/23/2006 1:00:32 PM PST
by
CWOJackson
(Tancredo? Wasn't he the bounty hunter in Star Wars?)
To: Reaganwuzthebest
"Rush is making himself look like a fool."
A most difficult job, to be sure....
77
posted on
02/23/2006 1:00:33 PM PST
by
MineralMan
(godless atheist)
To: afnamvet
If you had been looking for facts, you'd have already found them. Really, it's not that difficult.
78
posted on
02/23/2006 1:00:55 PM PST
by
jess35
To: ARCADIA
We can't stop this sale anyway. It's beyond our jurisdiction. This is a sale between two foreign companies.
This lawsuit is about as stupid as that fat woman suing McDonald's because she spilled piping hot coffee in her lap.
79
posted on
02/23/2006 1:01:15 PM PST
by
BigSkyFreeper
(Proud to be a cotton-pickin' Republican on the GOP Plantation)
To: Pukin Dog
The Port Authority can revoke their lease because of the lack of due diligence done on the deal by the review committee.
80
posted on
02/23/2006 1:01:23 PM PST
by
jimbo123
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 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