Posted on 10/24/2007 9:52:41 AM PDT by Parmenio
Fred Thompson will be issuing the following statement in about the next half hour:
"I oppose the ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty at this time. The Treaty threatens U.S. sovereignty and gives a U.N.-affiliated organization far too much authority over U.S. interests in international waters. The American people also deserve ironclad assurances that the problems with the treaty highlighted by President Reagan more than two decades ago have been fixed. At a time when customary international law in this area has proven sufficient, I believe the efforts of treaty proponents would be better spent reforming an ineffective, unaccountable, and corrupt United Nations. Until such reforms are complete, I see little reason for the U.S. to move forward on the Law of the Sea Treaty."
Opposing the sovereignty-surrendering Law of the Sea Treaty is a very popular issue with many conservative groups...
No source cited. Probably a press release from the Thompson campaign.
I am certainly more likely to consider him on the basis of this statement alone.
Oh, good! Fred’s been reading what we’ve been saying about LOST on FR and is finally reacting to it. Good for him!
“I oppose the ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty at this time.”
I for one am not likin’ the “at this time” part of this statement.
This doesn’t preclude him from pushing it through if he gets elected POTUS.
I'm really beginning to like this guy.
ping
I’ll take it. “At this time” means the treaty is crap as written.
Oh and takes balloons from grown women or something like that...
This, and yesterday before most blogs and hosts started focusing on the DreamAct...outside of Michelle Malkin...he issued a release on immigration. Coming out in favor of enforcement, attrition, and cultural assimilation. Nice move, because it was unprompted this time by front pages focusing on the issue. He pre-empted most of the folks concentrting on the DreamAct since last night and this morning.
This is the ONLY front running candidate I have some level of comfort about on this issue.
FDT is a one shot one kill campaigner, and like the sniper you wont know he is there until the returns come in and he is up 20 points...
GO FRED GO
And here comes the pick-apart of everything Fred says.
Say a telemarketer calls me. I say “I’m not interested at this time.”
Does that mean later I’ll buy from him? Probably not. In fact I’m pretty certain I won’t.
He makes them cry!
There are several vital economic reasons to oppose United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as an unprecedented redistribution of wealth to oligarchies. However, I want to stress the lethal potential for our Naval forces.
Treaties provide illusions of protection from unreasonable maritime challenges; illusions quickly dispelled by lack of forthright action. Concerning the showdown between U.S. (UNCLOS signed) and P.R.C. (UNCLOS ratified) over the Navy EP-3E, China saw no problem in provoking, and we had no strategy for responding to the incident, notwithstanding UNCLOS and prior treaties defining freedom of the seas. Further antidotal evidence emerges from taking of British (UNCLOS ratified) hostages by Iran (UNCLOS signed). In this day of instantaneous communication, the fact the British captain did not fight his command means senior commanders and politicians, including some masquerading in military uniforms, failed miserably when exerting the authority they had confiscated to protect freedom of the seas. Since Iran is a terrorist state, the first evolutions practiced by Coalition task force units should have been the continuum of actions opposing anticipated Iranian provocations in the Persian Gulf and Straits of Hormuz. One should have expected vigorous resistance to boarding of Iranian vessels in Iraqi waters. This and other Iranian intrigues should have elicited timely, consistent, practiced, lethal and non-lethal military responses. The provisions codify flaccid senior military/political responses by allowing shelter within prospective rulings from an international tribunal, thereby avoiding authorization for immediate, direct action to confront challenges.
The world-changing tragedies of September 2001 make imperative resolution of problems for treaty interpretation against us. Examples would be Articles 19 and 20 defining innocent passage, while within territorial seas, and Article 39 covering duties of ships while transiting straits used for international navigation. Acts prejudicial to peace of a coastal state include launching and landing aircraft, and using undersea craft for mine detection. Also a hostile reading of Articles 19 and 20, says using any electronic device other than navigational radar and Fathometer would be considered an act of propaganda or act aimed at collecting information. In regard to transiting straits used for international navigation, the same devices we need to protect our ships and insure freedom of the seas would be considered threats of force against sovereignty by totalitarian states seeking legal shelter for the piracy and terrorism used to dominate nearby international waters. State Department may assure friendly government relations (remember the U.S.S. Cole), but how many nations can and/or would provide practical sea, air and undersea supremacy guarantees allowing our warships to forgo defensive measures provided by aircraft, boats, sonar, and tactical radars and communication nets?
Supposedly, a “military activities exemption” would allow us to maintain adequate defenses in territorial waters, and straits used for international navigation, and not allow an international tribunal to frustrate Navy operations. Advocates such as Rear Admiral (Retired) W. L. Schachte and Dr. Scott C. Truver provide these assurances. However in their U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings comments, they refer to undefined protocols and not to treaty articles. Substantive, unambiguous protection for our naval operations does not reside within nuanced interpretations of passages or appendices subject to endless legal banter. If meaningful legal protection existed, the treaty would contain priority articles saying such statements as, “notwithstanding subsequent provisions, military activities that naval ships deem necessary to ensure freedom of the seas, and to deter or repel attacks are authorized”.
A new, hostile Council (not the Security Council) should have no problem defining terms to place our ships at risk of terrorism. For every Great Britain and Poland, which might hold one of 36 Council seats, I can name a Mozambique, Syria, Iran or Burma struggling through a new Dark Age where we are described as an economic predator and/or regime threat. We should not rely upon supposed friends either, when Donald Rumsfeld, Tommy Franks, and George Tenet are considered war criminals in Germany, Canada, and Belgium. The Security Council is cut out of the loop, so the veto we needed during the Cold War is not available for issues found within the treaty.
In reading this treaty, I believe you will find latitude in article language allowing this Council to write a massive body of implementing regulations directed against our ships and planes. These articles and regulations will bind our Sailors as they go into a “harms way” largely undefined in this era of violent peace. When something goes wrong, operators on 285 commissioned ships will pay the price, while 290 plus flag officers, Pentagon lawyers, and politicians in Washington D.C. express profound sorrow and outrage, as all bullet proof their resumes.
Did he support it at some point?
Fred is starting to grow on me a bit as well.
For a CFR guy, he does seem to place US interests over Intl Bodies interests...so far.
Oh crap, Fair Taxers are following Fred...
Oh well a vote is a vote...
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.