I've only been awake for about 30 minutes, so I may have heard fuzzily, but apparently Dubai Portsworld, the UAE owned company in question from the last post, will not be required by the US government to keep any company records in the US (which would make them subject to US gov't inspection) nor will they be required to have an employee liaison over here to make sure they're keeping good on our playing field.
Okay, NOW, I have to ask: "WTF?!" I have to go back to the premise that if none of this was required by the British company, it will be hard, and evidently hypocritical, to require this of Dubai Portsworld. Regardless of whether this kind of company local accessibility was required of the British company (or even just volunteered by them), the issue then is transparency of operation. I'm a firm believer in such transparency of ALL companies, but I think we have to require transparency of foreign investors, as well. We need to know that they're living up to our standards. If we ever chose to enforce and live up to our own. (Look at Skilling, Lay, Fastow, Ebbers, Koslowski, et al.) But of course the biggest fan of this purchase, the Bush WH, is a well known anti-fan of any informational or operational transparency. Whether it's about delaying and dodging news about something like a simple hunting accident, deciding legal and easily attained warrants to tap our conversations is beneath concern, or about silencing a simple critic by "leaking" that his wife is an undercover CIA agent instead of tackling his arguments and accusations head on, Shrub and Co. don't care for daylight, the best disinfectant in a democracy.
Dubai Portsworld has apparently delayed purchase of the 6 East Coast ports they were lined up to take. I suspect the deal will eventually go through. Regardless of whether the bipartisan brigade on the Hill legislates as they've threatened, or not. And again, I suspect one of the two hypothetical situations listed in the below post will occur.