Chinese to inspect our cargo for nuclear material

Looks like the foxes are now in charge of the henhouses.

http://www.nysun.com/article/29714

March 23, 2006 Edition > Section: National > Printer-Friendly Version

America Hires Chinese Firm To Inspect Cargo For Nuclear Material

BY TED BRIDIS - Associated Press
March 23, 2006
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/29714

WASHINGTON (AP) - In the aftermath of the Dubai ports dispute, the Bush administration is hiring a Hong Kong conglomerate to help detect nuclear materials inside cargo passing through the Bahamas to the United States and elsewhere.

The administration acknowledges the no-bid contract with Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. represents the first time a foreign company will be involved in running a sophisticated U.S. radiation detector at an overseas port without American customs agents present.

Freeport in the Bahamas is 65 miles from the U.S. coast, where cargo would be likely to be inspected again. The contract is currently being finalized.

The administration is negotiating a second no-bid contract for a Philippine company to install radiation detectors in its home country, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. At dozens of other overseas ports, foreign governments are primarily responsible for scanning cargo.

While President Bush recently reassured Congress that foreigners would not manage security at U.S. ports, the Hutchison deal in the Bahamas illustrates how the administration is relying on foreign companies at overseas ports to safeguard cargo headed to the United States.

Hutchison Whampoa is the world's largest ports operator and among the industry's most-respected companies. It was an early adopter of U.S. anti-terror measures. But its billionaire chairman, Li Ka-Shing, also has substantial business ties to China's government that have raised U.S. concerns over the years.

Li Ka-Shing is pretty close to a lot of senior leaders of the Chinese government and the Chinese Communist Party, said Larry M. Wortzel, head of a U.S. government commission that studies China security and economic issues. But Wortzel said Hutchison operates independently from Beijing, and he described Li as a very legitimate international businessman.

One can conceive legitimate security concerns and would hope either the Homeland Security Department or the intelligence services of the United States work very hard to satisfy those concerns, Wortzel said.

Three years ago, the Bush administration effectively blocked a Hutchison subsidiary from buying part of a bankrupt U.S. telecommunications company, Global Crossing Ltd., on national security grounds.

And a U.S. military intelligence report, once marked secret, cited Hutchison in 1999 as a potential risk for smuggling arms and other prohibited materials into the United States from the Bahamas.

Hutchison's port operations in the Bahamas and Panama could provide a conduit for illegal shipments of technology or prohibited items from the West to the PRC (People's Republic of China), or facilitate the movement of arms and other prohibited items into the Americas, the now-declassified assessment said.

The CIA currently has no security concerns about Hutchison's port operations, and the administration believes the pending deal with the foreign company would be safe, officials said.

Supervised by Bahamian customs officials, Hutchison employees will drive the towering, truck-like radiation scanner that moves slowly over large cargo containers and scans them for radiation that might be emitted by plutonium or a radiological weapon.

Any positive reading would set off alarms monitored simultaneously by Bahamian customs inspectors at Freeport and by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials working at an anti-terrorism center 800 miles away in northern Virginia. Any alarm would prompt a closer inspection of the cargo, and there are multiple layers of security to prevent tampering, officials said.

The equipment operates itself, said Bryan Wilkes, a spokesman for the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration, the agency negotiating the contract. It's not going to be someone standing at the controls pressing buttons and flipping switches.

A lawmaker who helped lead the opposition to the Dubai ports deal isn't so confident. Neither are some security experts. They question whether the U.S. should pay a foreign company with ties to China to keep radioactive material out of the United States.

Giving a no-bid contract to a foreign company to carry out the most sensitive security screening for radioactive materials at ports abroad raises many questions, said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

A low-paid employee with access to the screening equipment could frustrate international security by studying how the equipment works and which materials set off its alarms, warned a retired U.S. Customs investigator who specialized in smuggling cases.

Money buys a lot of things, Robert Sheridan said. The fact that foreign workers would have access to how the United States screens various containers for nuclear material and how this technology scrutinizes the containers _ all those things allow someone with a nefarious intention to thwart the screening.

Other experts discounted concerns. They cited Hutchison's reputation as a leading ports company and said the United States inevitably must rely for some security on large commercial operators in the global maritime industry.

We must not allow an unwarranted fear of foreign ownership or involvement in offshore operations to impair our ability to protect against nuclear weapons being smuggled into this country, said Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., a member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. We must work with these foreign companies.

A former Coast Guard commander, Stephen Flynn, said foreign companies sometimes prove more trustworthy _ and susceptible to U.S. influence _ than governments.

It's a very fragile system, Flynn said. Foreign companies recognize the U.S. has the capacity and willingness to exercise a kill switch if something goes wrong.

A spokesman for Hutchison's ports subsidiary, Anthony Tam, said the company is a strong supporter in port security initiatives.

In the case of the Bahamas, our local personnel are working alongside with U.S. customs officials to identify and inspect U.S.-bound containers that could be carrying radioactive materials, Tam said.

However, there are no U.S. customs agents checking any cargo containers at the Hutchison port in Freeport. Under the contract, no U.S. officials would be stationed permanently in the Bahamas with the radiation scanner.

The administration is finalizing the contract amid a national debate over maritime security sparked by the furor over now-abandoned plans by Dubai-owned DP World to take over significant operations at major U.S. ports.

Hutchison operates the sprawling Freeport Container Port on Grand Bahama Island. Its subsidiary, Hutchison Port Holdings, has operations in more than 20 countries but none in the United States.

Contract documents, obtained by The Associated Press, indicate Hutchison will be paid roughly $6 million. The contract is for one year with options for three years.

The Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration is negotiating the Bahamas contract under a $121 million security program it calls the second line of defense. Wilkes, the NNSA spokesman, said the Bahamian government dictated that the U.S. give the contract to Hutchison.

It's their country, their port. The driver of the mobile carrier is the contractor selected by their government. We had no say or no choice, he said. We are fortunate to have allies who are signing these agreements with us.

Some security experts said that is a weak explanation in the Bahamas, with its close reliance on the United States. The administration could insist that the Bahamas permit U.S. Customs agents to operate at the port, said Albert Santoli, an expert on national security issues in Asia and the Pacific.

Why would they not accept that? said Santoli, a former national security aide to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. There is an interest in the Bahamas and every other country in the region to make sure the U.S. stays safe and strong. That's how this should be negotiated.

Flynn, the former Coast Guard commander, agreed the Bahamas would readily accept such a proposal but said the U.S. is short of trained customs agents to send overseas.

Contract documents obtained by the AP show at least one other foreign company is involved in the U.S. radiation-detection program.

A separate, no-bid $4 million contract the Bush administration is negotiating would pay a Manila-based company, International Container Terminal Services Inc., to install radiation detectors at the Philippines' largest port.

The U.S. says the Manila company is not being paid to operate the radiation monitors once they are installed. But two International Container executives and a senior official at the government's Philippine Nuclear Research Institute said the company will run the detectors on behalf of the institute and the country's customs bureau. U.S. officials said they will investigate further how the Filipinos plan to use the equipment.

March 23, 2006 Edition > Section: National > Printer-Friendly Version

• Chinese to inspect our cargo for nuclear material - PK

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

The same post was posted, suggesting that JTBB and I get a room the other week.  The reason?  Because we agreed with each other about a political topic, and because we treated each other with respect and tolerance.

In your world, if "getting a room" is required every time one person treats another as a human being, with some respect and dignity, then it's likely you don't get many free deals from Motel 6.

It's almost becoming comical how much your pure hatred is coming through towards JTBB, merely because she disagrees with you.

It IS possible to disagree without being rude and disagreeable.

And, yes, go ahead and flame me again (and again and again) because I LIKE JTBB.  She speaks what she believes (with which I agree with at least 99% of the time), and she has a great sense of humor.

The biggest thing I respect about her, though, is that she's willing to keep coming back and taking the undeserved abuse heaped upon her, and she reveals her identity when she does it, unlike many of her crucifiers.  That takes guts in this hate hole.

To JTBB:  You go, girl!!! 

Here is Novak's recent article on him.  Creepy.  Reminds me a little of a wolf in sheep's clothing.  I think it is important to get the opinions of those people in the districts politicians serve.  Those opinions on Huckabee are not very good.

The False Conservative

by Robert Novak

Posted: 11/26/2007

Who would respond to criticism from the Club for Growth by calling the conservative, free-market campaign organization the "Club for Greed"? That sounds like Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich or John Edwards, all Democrats preaching the class struggle. In fact, the rejoinder comes from Mike Huckabee, who has broken out of the pack of second-tier Republican presidential candidates to become a serious contender -- definitely in Iowa and perhaps nationally.

Huckabee is campaigning as a conservative, but serious Republicans know that he is a high-tax, protectionist, big-government advocate of a strong hand in the Oval Office directing the lives of Americans. Until now, they did not bother to expose the former governor of Arkansas as a false conservative because he seemed an underfunded, unknown nuisance candidate. Now that he has pulled even with Mitt Romney for the Iowa caucuses with the possibility of more progress, the beleaguered Republican Party has a frightening problem on its hands.

The rise of evangelical Christians as the motive force that blasted the GOP out of minority status during the past generation always contained an inherent danger if these new Republican acolytes supported not merely a conventional conservative but one of their own. That has happened now with Huckabee, a former Baptist minister educated at Ouachita Baptist University and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. The danger is a serious contender for the nomination who passes the litmus test of social conservatives on abortion, gay marriage and gun control but is far removed from the conservative-libertarian model of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.

There is no doubt about Huckabee's record during a decade in Little Rock as governor. He was regarded by fellow Republican governors as a compulsive tax increaser and spender. He increased the Arkansas tax burden by 47 percent, boosting the levies on gasoline and cigarettes. When he decided to lose 100 pounds and pressed his new lifestyle on the American people, he was far from a Goldwater-Reagan libertarian.

As a presidential candidate, Huckabee has sought to counteract his reputation as a taxer by pressing for replacement of the income tax with a sales tax and has more recently signed the no-tax-increase pledge of Americans for Tax Reform. But Huckabee simply does not fit in normal boundaries of economic conservatism, as when he criticized President Bush's veto of a Democratic expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Calling global warming a "moral issue" mandating "a biblical duty" to prevent climate change, he has endorsed the cap-and-trade system that is anathema to the free market.

Huckabee clearly departs from the mainstream of the conservative movement in his confusion of "growth" with "greed." Such ad hominem attacks are part of his intuitive response to criticism from the Club for Growth and the libertarian Cato Institute for his record as governor. On Fox News Sunday Nov. 18, he called the "tactics" of the Club for Growth "some of the most despicable in politics today. It's why I love to call them the Club for Greed because they won't tell you who gave their money." In fact, all contributors to the organization's political action committee (which produces campaign ads) are publicly revealed, as are most donors financing issue ads.

Quin Hillyer, a former Arkansas journalist writing in the conservative American Spectator, called Huckabee "a guy with a thin skin, a nasty vindictive streak." Huckabee's retort was to attack Hillyer's journalistic procedures, fitting a mean-spirited image when he responds to conservative criticism.

Nevertheless, he is getting remarkably warm reviews in the news media as the most humorous, entertaining and interesting GOP presidential hopeful. Contrary to descriptions by old associates, he is now called "jovial" or "good-natured." Any Republican who does not sound much like a Republican is bound to benefit from friendly media support, as Sen. John McCain did in 2000 but not today with his return to being more like a conventional Republican.

An uncompromising foe of abortion can never enjoy full media backing. But Mike Huckabee is getting enough favorable buzz that, when combined with his evangelical base, it makes real conservatives shudder.

...purchasing these American icons.  More selling out of America, right under our noses.

Thank you, Congress. 

Chinese Automakers May Buy GM and Chrysler

By Bertel Schmitt
November 18, 2008 -

Chinese carmakers SAIC and Dongfeng have plans to acquire GM and Chrysler, China's 21st Century Business Herald reports today. [A National Enquirer the paper is not. It is one of China's leading business newspapers, with a daily readership over three million.] The paper cites a senior official of China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology–– the state regulator of China's auto industry–– who dropped the hint that "the auto manufacturing giants in China, such as Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation (SAIC) and Dongfeng Motor Corporation, have the capability and intention to buy some assets of the two crisis-plagued American automakers." These hints are very often followed with quick action in the Middle Kingdom. The hints were dropped just a few days after the same Chinese government gave its auto makers the go-ahead to invest abroad. And why would they do that?

A take-over of a large overseas auto maker would fit perfectly into China's plans. As reported before, China has realized that its export chances are slim without unfettered access to foreign technology. The brand cachet of Chinese cars abroad is, shall we say, challenged. The Chinese could easily export Made-in-China VWs, Toyotas, Buicks. If their joint venture partner would let them. The solution: Buy the joint venture partner. Especially, when he's in deep trouble.

At current market valuations (GM is worth less than Mattel) the Chinese government can afford to buy GM with petty cash. Even a hundred billion $ would barely dent China's more than $2t in currency reserves. For nobody in the world would buying GM and (while they are at it) Chrysler make more sense than for the Chinese. Overlap? What overlap? They would gain instant access to the world's markets with accepted brands, and proven technology.

21st Century Business Herald, obviously with input from higher-up, writes that Chinese industry must change and upgrade. China wants their factories to change from low-value-added manufacturing to technically innovative and financially-sound high-value-add industries. Says the paper: "It would be much easier now for strong Chinese automakers to go global by acquiring some assets of their U.S. counterparts in times of crisis."

Deloitte & Touche sees a trend: "Chinese automakers can start with buying out the OEM projects and Chinese ventures of some global carmakers such as GM and Chrysler."

The Chinese appear to have bigger plans than an accounting firm can imagine. 21st Century Business Herald acts and writes as if its already a done deal, and the beginning of more to come. "In the coming two years China is likely to see a few of its large Chinese automakers and other manufacturing enterprises set a precedent for achieving globalization by acquiring global companies, just like SAIC or Dongfeng's possible acquisition of troubled GM or Chrysler."

Just in case you missed it, the Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation (SAIC) is China's largest auto manufacturer. In 1984, the company entered a joint venture with Volkswagen. A decade later, SAIC entered a joint venture with General Motors. In 2007, SAIC bought the Nanjing Automobile Corporation, which had acquired British MG Rover in 2005.

Dongfeng Motor Corporation is a public company, although 70 percent of their shares are reported to be in government hands. They also are one of China's Big Three. The company has numerous joint venture partners, such as Nissan, Peugeot-Citroen, Honda, and Kia. Dongfeng (which means "East Wind") was founded at the behest of Mao Zedong himself in 1968.

They don't want to buy any more of our debt, as our $ is almost worthless.  They've been buying up homes in southern CA big-time.  They already know that this most liberal "plan" will make the US self-destruct.

Those who voted for this man and refused to listen to many of us who said h'ed do this, don't cry to me.  This is merely the beginning.

Here we go again.  :-(

U.N. Inspectors Dispute Iran Report By House Panel
Paper on Nuclear Aims Called Dishonest

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 14, 2006; A17

U.N. inspectors investigating Iran's nuclear program angrily complained to the Bush administration and to a Republican congressman yesterday about a recent House committee report on Iran's capabilities, calling parts of the document outrageous and dishonest and offering evidence to refute its central claims.

Officials of the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency said in a letter that the report contained some erroneous, misleading and unsubstantiated statements. The letter, signed by a senior director at the agency, was addressed to Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, which issued the report. A copy was hand-delivered to Gregory L. Schulte, the U.S. ambassador to the IAEA in Vienna.

The IAEA openly clashed with the Bush administration on pre-war assessments of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Relations all but collapsed when the agency revealed that the White House had based some allegations about an Iraqi nuclear program on forged documents.

After no such weapons were found in Iraq, the IAEA came under additional criticism for taking a cautious approach on Iran, which the White House says is trying to build nuclear weapons in secret. At one point, the administration orchestrated a campaign to remove the IAEA's director general, Mohamed ElBaradei. It failed, and he won the Nobel Peace Prize last year.

Yesterday's letter, a copy of which was provided to The Washington Post, was the first time the IAEA has publicly disputed U.S. allegations about its Iran investigation. The agency noted five major errors in the committee's 29-page report, which said Iran's nuclear capabilities are more advanced than either the IAEA or U.S. intelligence has shown.

Among the committee's assertions is that Iran is producing weapons-grade uranium at its facility in the town of Natanz. The IAEA called that incorrect, noting that weapons-grade uranium is enriched to a level of 90 percent or more. Iran has enriched uranium to 3.5 percent under IAEA monitoring.

When the congressional report was released last month, Hoekstra said his intent was to help increase the American public's understanding of Iran as a threat. Spokesman Jamal Ware said yesterday that Hoekstra will respond to the IAEA letter.

Rep. Rush D. Holt (D-N.J.), a committee member, said the report was clearly not prepared in a manner that we can rely on. He agreed to send it to the full committee for review, but the Republicans decided to make it public before then, he said in an interview.

The report was never voted on or discussed by the full committee. Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the vice chairman, told Democratic colleagues in a private e-mail that the report took a number of analytical shortcuts that present the Iran threat as more dire -- and the Intelligence Community's assessments as more certain -- than they are.

Privately, several intelligence officials said the committee report included at least a dozen claims that were either demonstrably wrong or impossible to substantiate. Hoekstra's office said the report was reviewed by the office of John D. Negroponte, the director of national intelligence.

Negroponte's spokesman, John Callahan, said in a statement that his office reviewed the report and provided its response to the committee on July 24, '06. He did not say whether it had approved or challenged any of the claims about Iran's capabilities.

This is like prewar Iraq all over again, said David Albright, a former nuclear inspector who is president of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security. You have an Iranian nuclear threat that is spun up, using bad information that's cherry-picked and a report that trashes the inspectors.

The committee report, written by a single Republican staffer with a hard-line position on Iran, chastised the CIA and other agencies for not providing evidence to back assertions that Iran is building nuclear weapons.

It concluded that the lack of intelligence made it impossible to support talks with Tehran. Democrats on the committee saw it as an attempt from within conservative Republican circles to undermine Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who has agreed to talk with the Iranians under certain conditions.

The report's author, Fredrick Fleitz, is a onetime CIA officer and special assistant to John R. Bolton, the administration's former point man on Iran at the State Department. Bolton, who is now ambassador to the United Nations, had been highly influential during President Bush's first term in drawing up a tough policy that rejected talks with Tehran.

Among the allegations in Fleitz's Iran report is that ElBaradei removed a senior inspector from the Iran investigation because he raised concerns about Iranian deception regarding its nuclear program. The agency said the inspector has not been removed.

A suggestion that ElBaradei had an unstated policy that prevented inspectors from telling the truth about Iran's program was particularly outrageous and dishonest, according to the IAEA letter, which was signed by Vilmos Cserveny, the IAEA's director for external affairs and a former Hungarian ambassador.

Hoekstra's committee is working on a separate report about North Korea that is also being written principally by Fleitz. A draft of the report, provided to The Post, includes several assertions about North Korea's weapons program that the intelligence officials said they cannot substantiate, including one that Pyongyang is already enriching uranium.

The intelligence community believes North Korea is trying to acquire an enrichment capability but has no proof that an enrichment facility has been built, the officials said.

They have stated repeatedly it is for energy. 

I have a real difficult time knowing who to believe.  Bush has paid the media to present his point of view.  This tactic used to be called propaganda when it referred to Communists.  Communists were supposed to be the ones who wanted to take over the entire world and force their form of government on everyone.

Today it's America doing the very same thing.

It's not difficult to find an ever growing list of Bush lies.

If you can provide me with a similar list of lies told by Ahmadinejad, I'd love to read it. 

The issue here is credibility and who has the biggest history of lying.  Unfortunately, a pack of lies is what got us where we are in Iraq today.  To me, it looks like Bush is trying the very same tactics to get us into a war with Iran. 

Although Ahmadinejad is a terrible, psychotic, murderous, dangerous individual, Bush is the person who has the five-year history of lying to the American people and to the world.

Quite frankly, if I were the president of Iran and saw my neighbor, Iraq, invaded based on a pack of lies, I believe I'd want to flex my muscles and try to scare the USA into backing off and not attacking my citizens as they did in Iraq. 

Israel has nuclear weapons (that I believe WE paid for).  The USA has nuclear weapons.  Why is that okay?

The real threat is Korea, but Bush is too much of a coward and doesn't have the courage to address that threat.

The propaganda machine of George W. Bush has cast Syria in a very negative light, yet Syria was responsible for saving American lives the other day by thwarting a terror attempt.

That, in and of itself, in addition to Bush's refusal to get the Taliban that were in plain view the other day, has me questioning every single word that comes out of this lying president's mouth.

Yes, I'll say it again.  He is a liar.  A LIAR!  Maybe in your neck of the woods, lying is an accepted form of communication.  Where I come from, it does nothing but destroy credibility and create distrust in the person who is doing the lying.  You can respond with all the snappy **you hate bush** and **you're on the side of the terrorists** comebacks you want (seems to be the usual conservative talking point response), but the bottom line is he is a chronic liar.  I don't hate Bush, but I sure as heck don't like (or trust) liars. 

Am I the only one who finds this scary?

Fed approves Chinese bank CCB to open office in US

Mon Dec 8, 5:15 pm ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) –– The US Federal Reserve said Monday it had authorized China Construction Bank, a leading Chinese state bank, to operate in the United States.

The proposed New York City branch of CCB "would engage in wholesale deposit-taking, lending, trade finance, and other banking services," the Fed said in a statement.

The US central bank recalled that China Construction Bank Corporation (CCB) is 57.0 percent owned by the Chinese state, 19.7 percent by US banking group Bank of America and 5.7 percent by Temasek Holdings, a sovereign wealth fund owned by the government of Singapore. The remainder of the capital is publicly traded.

CCB is the second-largest bank in China, with total assets of approximately 1.1 trillion dollars, it noted.

The Fed said it had determined that CCB had adequate anti-money laundering safeguards and had committed to respect US laws on money laundering.

CCB's own funds exceed the minimum set by the 1998 Basel Capital Accord and "is considered equivalent to capital that would be required of a US banking organization," the US central bank said.

CCB would be the fourth mainland Chinese bank -- excluding banks in Hong Kong -- to open operations in the US, after the Agricultural Bank of China, the Bank of China and the Bank of Communications.

The Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), China's top bank, also has asked the Fed for authorization to open a branch in New York.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081208/pl_afp/uschinabankregulatebankingcompanyccb

What didn't he mention in his meeting?

1.  China's outrageous increase in human rights violations. (Hillary forgot about this also, though.)  Umm, I thought this was supposed to be the liberals' big beef with China.

2.  China's recent call for a new "world currency" to replace the dollar.

3.  China's recent criticism of massive increases in US debt.

4.  China's recent military moves, including confrontation with US warships in international waters or massive buildup of forces across from Taiwan, increases in military spending, etc.

No, no.  None of that!  Just "Let's get together for a kumbaya party, Comrade. I'm having a new Party Worker's suit made out of taxpayer skin that'll knock your eye out!"

over the treaty with Taiwan?  This was reported on Fox News this week.

Anyone been following this?