WTF? Homeland Security Is Putting Our Ports At More Risk

[Annie]

some power companies are already owned by forgien companies. its the ships not the ports that are the problem. even then you can screen all the ships and cargo you want but that doesn't stop someone from jumping over board in the harbor which happens all the time. the southern boarder is more of a concern then who owns what

IMO they shouldn't be and it should be righted. I agree with borders and not just Southern ones. As for those that break our laws, US citizens that is, they should face the consequences, whether jumping off of ships or jeeps at Mexican border.

 

[Mr. P]

and clinton could have delayed it once it was known the chinese were now going to control one of the most important waters ways in the world not just for us trade but or national security. he didn't even raise an eyebrow.

I think all he could have done was break the treaty.

and how is a foreign company going to put or ports at risk?

Here is information on the Panama Canal that relates to that question.

Possible sabotage
According to the New York Times, the day after the Senate ratified the treaty, Torrijos declared that his regime had contingency plans to sabotage the canal if ratification had failed. In August, 1990 the Chicago Tribune reported that documents captured by the U. S. military revealed that Torrijos had asked Manuel Noriega to prepare such plans. Noriega's handwritten notes on the plan were found during the 1989 invasion.
These reports were confirmed in Noriega's book, America's Prisoner published in 1997. The contingency plan was code-named "Huele a Quemado" ("It smells like something's burning."). In Noriega's account, Panamanian military specialists, had infiltrated the U.S. security cordon and lived for two months, posing as peasants and fishermen. They were prepared to assault the canal and the Panama-Colón railway with explosives and rocket launchers upon Torrijos' signal, to be broadcast as a coded message on the program of a popular radio personality.

It seems to me there is a higher chance the same could happen with a foreign company operating our ports rather than US, NO?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrijos-Carter_Treaties

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

theres a difference: the company now running the panama canal is a chinese military front company. chinese now run the operations. here americans run it. its no different then a company like citgo. venezuela and that nut chavez own it but i don't see everyone screaming we need to shut down every citgo gas station and track every citgo tanker because that nut chavez might have his people blow a few of them up. now in panama they can stop us warships from entering the port there fore they would now have to go around south america to reach the west coast. no one can tell us what we can or can't do with us ports in the continental united states. in case you haven't noticed the chinese are building their armed forces with stolen us technology and technology gain through espinage conducted around the panama canal. shit the chinese just launched their first aegis destoyer. and why is this port deal being made a big deal? the dems for the most part need to improve their ratings on national security.

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=papers&code=99-F_18

Senator Lott Calls for Hearings on Chinese Penetration of the Panama Canal Zone

(Washington, D.C.): As the clock inexorably runs on the United States' completion of its withdrawal from the bases that control the Panama Canal, the risks associated with such a step are both growing and becoming a matter of increasing concern in Washington. Of particular concern are the confluence of the intensifying conflict in neighboring Colombia and the long-term lease of key facilities on both ends of the "path between the seas" to Communist Chinese entities. According to a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Thomas H. Moorer (USN, Ret.):


"A company called Panama Ports Company, S.A., affiliated with Hutchinson Whampoa, Ltd. through its owner, Mr. Li Ka-Shing, currently maintains control of four of the Panama Canal's major ports....Panama Port Company is 10 percent owned by China Resources Enterprise, the commercial arm of China's Ministry of Trade and Economic Cooperation."

Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) has called China Resources Enterprise "an agent of espionage -- economic, military, and political -- for China." He also has observed that CRE has "geopolitical purposes. Kind of like a smiling tiger; it might look friendly, but it's very dangerous." The same might be said of Li Ka-Shing, who has been closely linked with the Chinese government, including the People's Liberation Army and intelligence services.
So great is the unease about Chinese penetration of the Western hemisphere's most strategic waterway that the Senate Majority Leader yesterday formally requested that the Senate Armed Services Committee assess this situation and its implications for U.S. national security and economic equities. Excerpts of Senator Lott's wise tasking letter follow (emphasis added):

The Honorable John W. Warner
United States Senate
225 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear John:

...In [an August letter to Secretary of Defense William Cohen], I raised questions regarding Hutchison-Whampoa, a company with reported Chinese military and intelligence ties, and its control of port facilities at either end of the Canal. To date, I have not received a response to my letter from Secretary Cohen.

The turnover of the Panama Canal is a very divisive and controversial issue of its own accord. The Canal is strategically important; one-third of the world's shipping passes through its waters. Unimpeded commercial and military passage through the Canal is of primary importance to the United States, its number one user.

It is the perception of some of my colleagues and I that the Chinese involvement in Panama may not be straightforward and could, in fact, be a threat to our national security. One example would be the apparent rights to former U.S. installations won by the Chinese in a perceived "disputed competition bid" for these facilities. My interest is to learn the facts associated with the Panama Canal transfer.

I would appreciate greatly your committee, as part of your hearings this fall, reviewing this critical national security issue. Some questions that I feel deserve attention are:

What powers does Panama Law No. 5 give Hutchison Whampoa in controlling, influencing and running the Panama Canal? Could these powers be used to limit or hinder U.S. military or commercial traffic transiting the Canal?

What are the national security risks of Hutchison Whampoa controlling container facilities in the Balboa and Cristobal ports? What are that national security risks of Hutchison Whampoa eventually controlling former U.S. military bases in Panama?

Does Hutchison Whampoa or its Chairman, Li Ka-shing, have ties to the Chinese Communist Party, the People's Liberation Army, or Chinese intelligence activities?

Does the 1977 treaty ensure that the United States can intervene, militarily if necessary, to keep the Panama Canal open? What options short of direct military intervention are available to the U.S. to ensure the safe, timely transit of U.S. military and commercial traffic through the Canal?

Is China purchasing the leverage of a "blue water Navy" by commercial control of the Panama Canal? How might this asymmetric response impact our Western Pacific doctrine, particularly regarding Japan, Korea, and Taiwan?

I appreciate greatly your considering this request. The transfer of control of the Panama Canal is one of the critical national security issues currently facing our Nation, and its impact will be felt for many generations to come.

* * *

Again, thank you for your attention to this issue. With very best wishes, I am

Sincerely yours,

Trent Lott

 

[trobinett]

Well, this is all real "international", but really, if the United States wants to use the Panama canal, who the hell is going to stop us?

The end game, the canal was expensive to operate, and required troops to provide security. Let someone else bear that expense.

Nothing would make me feel better than having the "last word" on ALL world security, it`s NOT practical, nor realistic.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

we use the canal more then anyone but i'll sum up my arguement as simple as possable: even if the ports are sold nothings going to change. the same guys will still be working the docks. the same harbour masters with help dock the ships on and on. the only thing that is going to change is the name on the letterhead

 

[Annie]

we use the canal more then anyone but i'll sum up my arguement as simple as possable: even if the ports are sold nothings going to change. the same guys will still be working the docks. the same harbour masters with help dock the ships on and on. the only thing that is going to change is the name on the letterhead

If Panama Canal has been wrong, which I happen to agree with you on; that doesn't mean we have to compound the error, which it seems you are arguing for.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

the point is nothing is going to change no matter whos running the ports. the same laws,rules and regulations will still apply. panama is different because the company and country who control is are on a crash course with us over economic and military might. since they control the port they can control both. if they were to close it to us our economy will take a hit. the changing of a lease holder on a port wouldn't effect us one way or another since the same people on the ground are running it. if for some reason the new lease holder want to fast track certain ships from certain countries their might be a problem but their won't be.

 

[Annie]

the point is nothing is going to change no matter whos running the ports. the same laws,rules and regulations will still apply. panama is different because the company and country who control is are on a crash course with us over economic and military might. since they control the port they can control both. if they were to close it to us our economy will take a hit. the changing of a lease holder on a port wouldn't effect us one way or another since the same people on the ground are running it. if for some reason the new lease holder want to fast track certain ships from certain countries their might be a problem but their won't be.

I respectfully disagree. Our infrastructure and security should be under US control, only. Same with buying our most sensitive military hardware, US firms only, no Chinese made 'smart bombs,' for example. And I am for outsourcing in the 'regular markets.'

 

[dilloduck]

I respectfully disagree. Our infrastructure and security should be under US control, only. Same with buying our most sensitive military hardware, US firms only, no Chinese made 'smart bombs,' for example. And I am for outsourcing in the 'regular markets.'

It's my understanding that this same coming has already been our ports for quite some time and owned by a British company. While homeland security constantly receives criticism for not being as good as it should be, it has been successful enough to prevent a major port "incident" for quite some time. I'm not even sure there is an American company that can handle the job. Was this a no-bid contract or did others want the job?

 

[Annie]

It's my understanding that this same coming has already been our ports for quite some time and owned by a British company. While homeland security constantly receives criticism for not being as good as it should be, it has been successful enough to prevent a major port "incident" for quite some time. I'm not even sure there is an American company that can handle the job. Was this a no-bid contract or did others want the job?

Personally I would have had a problem if it was made 'known' that the British company had the contract, though NOT, I grant you, as vehement a reaction as UAE ownership.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

I respectfully disagree. Our infrastructure and security should be under US control, only. Same with buying our most sensitive military hardware, US firms only, no Chinese made 'smart bombs,' for example. And I am for outsourcing in the 'regular markets.'

i'm more worried about the crews on the tankers then who owns the port. some nut could start afire on board an lng tanker and level 3/4 of boston if the tanker was to explode

 

[Annie]

i'm more worried about the crews on the tankers then who owns the port. some nut could start afire on board an lng tanker and level 3/4 of boston if the tanker was to explode

I understand that concern, bu† we are unlikely to close the ports, so we do what we need to do. It will be interesting to see how this ends up.