Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I quote from the San Francisco Chronicle:
Under that review, officials from the departments of Defense, State, Commerce and Transportation, along with the National Security Council and other agencies, were charged with raising questions and passing judgment. They found no problem that would warrant the next stage of review, a 45-day investigation with results reported to the president for a final determination.
eta: I saw the link but he doesn't discuss the relevant statute. Not that I can say offhand what it is.
However, a 1993 amendment to the law stipulates that such an investigation is mandatory when the acquiring company is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government. Administration officials said they conducted additional inquires because of the connection to the UAE, but they could not say why the 45-day formal investigation did not take place.
|
Don't let me rain on the SF Chronicle's most assuredly unbiased reporting, but isn't the company securing the ports British? I thought Dubai was just buying the British company which secures the ports. Am I wrong? And if I'm not, why would we have an isssue with what a Britich subsidiary of a Dubai company does here? Have you researched how many buildings and businesses the Saudis own here? The Saudis own a huge cunk of Citigroup.
Now, if you can point to one piece of evidence showing me where a citizen of Dubai will be hands-on actively involved in securing our ports, I echo your concerns. But surely, as astute legal counsel, all of you pointing fingers about this Dubai Port Scandal realize that companies buy other companies all the time, with absolutely no intention of being intimately involved in the running of the purchased company's hard operations. But you knew that already. So I'm sure you've done your homework to ensure that this deal would involve Dubai citizens watching our ports before spouting off about the issue.
Carry on.
