CAFTA Built on Rotten Foundation of Kangaroo Courts

Sierra Times... ^ | July 14, 2005

[hedgetrimmer]

U.S. Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA) today called on fellow House Members to closely examine the system of settling all trade and immigration disputes under CAFTA, as a violation of American legal principles and a kangaroo court system stacked against the United States. In the event that Central American governments' understanding of CAFTA immigration provisions are different than what the Bush Administration is now telling Congress, it would be an international tribunal set up under CAFTA and staffed by a panel of three "judges" that would settle the dispute. CAFTA rules under Article 20.9 dictate that the tribunal consists of two Central Americans pitted against a single U.S. judge in all cases involving the United States.

CAFTA’s international tribunal would use international, not U.S. law, to judge whether existing federal, state or local U.S. policies had to be changed to conform with CAFTA’s 1000 pages of non-trade policy requirements. Failure to meet the CAFTA tribunal dictates would subject the U.S. to indefinite trade sanctions until the offending U.S. laws were overturned, under CAFTA Article 20.16.

Under the CAFTA international tribunal and law system, American citizens lose their due process right of appeal to the U.S. justice system, virtually eliminating American legal sovereignty over issues covered by the agreement.

Other CAFTA provisions seem designed to actually trigger later challenges before CAFTA tribunals. For instance, CAFTA creates a new “right” for services to be provided by "a national of a party in the Territory of another party" (CAFTA Article 11.14(c)) yet is silent on what visas would be used to allow such temporary entry - begging a challenge of any future U.S. denial of entry to workers from the CAFTA countries.

Norwood says the packed tribunals are the defining feature of CAFTA, loaded with conflicting language, the meaning of which CAFTA tribunals alone would be empowered to decide. "In some places, certain CAFTA provisions appear to safeguard American interests, but then a few paragraphs later a clause is included that directly conflicts and overturns what seem like safeguards,” says Norwood. "And then these kangaroo courts stacked against America determine which interpretation prevails, with no right of appeal. With this system of dispute resolution as the foundation of CAFTA, no amount of protections will ever be adequate to prevent Americans from being run over by unfair trade policies and open borders immigration."

[hedgetrimmer]

"CAFTA’s international tribunal would use international, not U.S. law, to judge whether existing federal, state or local U.S. policies had to be changed to conform with CAFTA’s 1000 pages of non-trade policy requirements. Failure to meet the CAFTA tribunal dictates would subject the U.S. to indefinite trade sanctions until the offending U.S. laws were overturned, under CAFTA Article 20.16."

[hedgetrimmer]

A republican congressman has this to say about CAFTA.

[hedgetrimmer]

No vote for CAFTA



Today’s question: Should Congress pass CAFTA? I for one say absolutely not!
CAFTA is NAFTA on steroids. It’s more than just the usual tangle of billions of dollars in concessions crafted by lobbyists and supported by politicians to pay off the politically well connected.

CAFTA fits hand in glove with the world government agenda to make the United States just another client state.

CAFTA contains provisions that have absolutely nothing to do with trade. It even affects decisions at the state and federal level on how we spend our own U.S. tax money and on land-use policies.

Under CAFTA, foreign judges could tell the citizens of Montana or Oregon or Wyoming or any state to change their laws and the federal government would be obligated to step in and force the state or states to do it!

CAFTA actually grants foreign investors greater legal rights in the United States than our own American companies and citizens have operating right in our own country.

And worst of all: All that and more are being shoved down Congress’ throat under the so-called “fast-track” trade-negotiating authority. “Fast track” is totally unconstitutional.

If the Big Government types and the globalists win this battle, we the citizens, our Constitution and sovereignty lose. This is a turning point.

Arthur Hollowell

Joliet

[Jibaholic]

I'm a believer in free markets, free trade and laissez-faire economics. But I'm also against CAFTA for largely for the same reasons. The US should not subordinate its soveriegnty to unelected officials.

This will not go over with the protectionists, but instead we should drop all import tariffs and quotas to zero, and withdraw immediately from all international trade organizations.

[hedgetrimmer]

withdraw immediately from all international trade organizations.

I think there are quite a few Americans who will agree with you on this.

[Moral Hazard]

"Under the CAFTA international tribunal and law system, American citizens lose their due process right of appeal to the U.S. justice system, virtually eliminating American legal sovereignty over issues covered by the agreement."

Wasn't this same argument used against the WTO and it turned out to be garbage? Complying with any WTO decision is voluntary, and the organization only has power as an arbiter in so far as both sides agree to abide by the decisions of the WTO. Doesn't CAFTA have the same type of arbitration process?

[joesnuffy]

By Ron Strom
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Opponents of a Bush-backed trade agreement are tying the pact to recently approved international food-supplement regulations, saying if the trade deal is finalized Americans' access to vitamins and other nutritional supplements will be jeopardized.

CAFTA, or the Central American Free Trade Agreement, would eliminate trade barriers between the U.S. and nations in Central America. While proponents, including the Bush administration, say CAFTA would help improve the economy at home and abroad, opponents say the deal would threaten U.S. sovereignty and draw manufacturing jobs south of the border.

"CAFTA will only speed up the loss of American jobs and worsen the inequalities and exploitation of workers in Central America," North Carolina AFL-CIO President James Andrews said ahead of a visit by President Bush to the state to promote CAFTA. Besides labor unions, many agricultural interests in the U.S. also are opposed to the agreement.

The trade pact has been approved by the U.S. Senate. The House is expected to vote on the deal soon, perhaps next week, and those watching the legislation say the vote could be very close.

One of the tactics used by CAFTA opponents is to tie the international regulation of vitamins to the trade deal.

The Codex Alimentarius (food code) Commission, which was established in 1963 by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the World Health Organization, develops the international food code that intends to ensure the safety of food, and provides regulations for global trade of food products. In a meeting last week, the commission approved a set of regulations for vitamins and nutritional supplements.

While the Codex regulations are not mandated on all participating nations, some experts believe nations on the losing end of trade disputes could be compelled to adopt them. The worst-case scenario for Americans would be the regulation of certain dosages of over-the-counter supplements as prescription drugs.

Opponents of CAFTA point out the trade agreement contains a provision called the "Sanitary Phytosanitary Measures Agreement," which calls for signatory nations to "harmonize" their food regulations with those of the Codex Commission.

"Do you take vitamins and nutritional supplements? Do you want a synod of sickly Euro-socialists deciding which ones you can take, or whether you'll be able to take any of them at all? If your answers are 'yes' and 'no' – then take action NOW to stop CAFTA!" wrote William Norman Grigg in the New American.

Continued Grigg: "John C. Hammell of International Advocates for Health Freedom points out that the 'safety standards' imposed by the Commission in essence treat vitamins as potentially dangerous drugs, imposing 'Maximum Safe Permitted Levels' of potency that would make them practically useless."

Opponents believe the Codex regulations would supersede the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, which gave American consumers who use supplements certain protections against government regulations.

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, a CAFTA opponent, says the deal circumvents the Constitution:

"I oppose CAFTA for a very simple reason: it is unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly grants Congress alone the authority to regulate international trade. The plain text of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 is incontrovertible. Neither Congress nor the president can give this authority away by treaty, any more than they can repeal the First Amendment by treaty. This fundamental point, based on the plain meaning of the Constitution, cannot be overstated. Every member of Congress who votes for CAFTA is voting to abdicate power to an international body in direct violation of the Constitution."

Romelle Winters is the press secretary for the America First Party, which also opposes CAFTA.

Comparing CAFTA to the North American Free Trade Agreement, Winters states: "NAFTA has been a disaster for the American people. Those who supported it claimed it would create American jobs, open new markets, expand our trade surpluses, reduce illegal immigration, improve the standard of living for all participants, and cure the common cold. Twelve years of experience show this all to be a lie."

Sun Protective Clothing

Though the Codex food supplement regulations have bee pending for 10 years and have drawn considerable attention, it was a proposal to regulate Parmesan cheese that caused the hottest debate at the commission's meeting last week. Plans to establish a set of international production rules for Parmesan cheese were scrapped after hours of debate. Italian diary farmers who make the original Parmigiano-Reggiano celebrated their victory.

Meanwhile, in the European Union, the EU Food Supplements Directive is set to take effect Aug. 1. Though there is a list of 28 "safe" vitamins and minerals that will continue to be sold in EU countries, there are 200 substances that will be restricted. A last minute attempt to block the regulations this week was turned back by the European Court of Justice.

CAFTA is a precursor to another treaty detractors say will dilute U.S. sovereignty, the Free Trade Area of the Americas, or FTAA. The pact would enlarge NAFTA, the North America Free Trade Agreement, to include all of the nations of the Americas except Cuba.

Related stories:

Free-trade pact a threat to U.S. sovereignty?

Vitamins: Will they be regulated as drugs?

Related link:

"CAFTA’s Threats to U.S. Independence"


Ron Strom is a news editor for WorldNetDaily.com.

[GladesGuru]

"Do you want a synod of sickly Euro-socialists deciding which ones you can take, or whether you'll be able to take any of them at all? If your answers are 'yes' and 'no' – then take action NOW to stop CAFTA!"

Word choice is contrary to the author's point. The first question "Do you want a synod of sickly Euro-socialists deciding which ones you can take" should be answered by a "no".

But the author used "yes". The proof reader is your friend. And sometimes can be quite cute. too.

[hedgetrimmer]

More info:

CAFTA anf the EU: Codex Alimentarius

[hedgetrimmer]

Its not garbage, US tax law was changed because of our "obligations" to the Marrakkesh agreement and the WTO.

The treasury secretary even testified to meet our "obligations" we'd have to change our tax code.

U.S. compliance with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules will require Congress and the Bush administration to agree on "real and meaningful changes" to provisions of the tax code that affect companies doing business overseas, says Deputy Treasury Secretary Kenneth Dam.

Here is a state department release saying the US must conform with global tax rules.

http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/2002/12385.htm

[Moral Hazard]

"Its not garbage, US tax law was changed because of our "obligations" to the Marrakkesh agreement and the WTO.

The treasury secretary even testified to meet our "obligations" we'd have to change our tax code. "

But it is congress's prerogative to pass any such changes, isn't it? How then is there a loss of sovereignty?

All this constitutes is some organization saying "your laws are in violation of this agreement". The WTO has no power to change those laws itself.

[hedgetrimmer]

How then is there a loss of sovereignty?

What the globalists like to gloss over is the fact that our government is based on individual rights and self govnerment and that our law is supposed to RISE from the CITIZEN, not forced downward on the CITIZEN from international socialist trade organizations. The congress is granted authority to make law by the citizens, the citizens did not ask for the tax law to be changed, the WTO did. That is a utter and complete reversal of the purpose of the Constitution and our Constitutional republic. It shows that the citizens are not sovereign in their tax laws, but that Congress is now answering to a supranational body to make decisions about law.

That IS a violation of our sovereignty.

It wasn't long ago that CITIZENS knew their responsiblity to be the ultimate source of law for the country, but the internationalists that have corrupted our goverment and our universities have seen that the American people are no longer educated in their civic responsiblities.

[Moral Hazard]

And if congress changes the law in a way the citizens don't like they no longer have the ability to vote them out of office?

[hedgetrimmer]

How does that change the law?

Also, why is the Congress obligating the United States to an international body in the first place? Their obligation is to US citizens, -- remember the purpose of government is to protect individual libert and property?

How can they be protecting individual liberty when they are siging "trade agreements" whose purpose is to end poverty in Central America, give authority to citizens from Central America to move at will into the united states under the WTO mode 4 "free movement of persons" and to establish trade and services here without being obligated to have licenses or the same education level that US citizens have to have in order to do business here?

I wouldn't call that "preserving individual rights" of American citizens, would you?

[Moral Hazard]

"Also, why is the Congress obligating the United States to an international body in the first place? Their obligation is to US citizens, -- remember the purpose of government is to protect individual libert and property?"

Congress agreed to GATT and will agree to CAFTA because free trade improves the standard of living for both sides. Americans will be better off both because of lower tariffs on imports from other countries and lower tariffs on exports to other countries.

The "obligation" to an international body is the United States admitting that legitimate disputes as to the interpretation and implementation to the agreement will arrive, and that there needs to be an arbiter to resolve disputes. The United States agrees to seriously consider any recommendation that that body makes, but retains the power to ignore any such recomendation if it chooses. That seems to me to be the ideal way to resolve international disputes while retaining sovereignty.

[hedgetrimmer]

because free trade improves the standard of living for both sides

It is not the purpose of the United States government to raise the standard of living in a foreign country. If you say that this agreement does that, then it isn't a trade agreement, its a foreign aid agreement. Foreign aid is supposed to be determined by Congress, not an unelected USTR office, which wrote the CAFTA.

If businesses want to go to these countries and raise the standard of living, there, why do they need the United States government to be involved at all? If you read the fine print of CAFTA you will see that these businesses want the US taxpayer to subsidize their relocation, removing the risk to the business and stealing the money from the American taxpayer in an utterly disingenuous fashion. If fact the corruption of our congress is so complete, by these internationalist interests that this agreement takes taxpayers own money to create competition against them in these foreign countries. Thats ironic, isn't it, that our own money is being used to put us out of business in favor of low cost and slave labor countries?

CAFTA isn't about tariffs at all. You "free traders" have been shown CAFTA institutes the global socialist program of sustainable development created by uber-globalists Gro Harlem Brundtlandt and Maurice Strong ( how is it that they have a say in what is written into CAFTA and US citizens do not?) in CAFTA countries, which BTW includes the US. It creates yet another taxpayer funded international committee to determine where the foreign aid money, falsely labeled "trade capacity building" is to be spent.

In terms of allowing a internationalist "arbiter" to resolve disagreements in our obligations? Again, removing the authority of the citizen to have elected representation affecting him through our laws. The constitution does not allow for international agencies to be the arbiter of anything, Congress cannot rightfully give up that authority to an outside body. Additionally, negotiations between countries would be between the state department, congress and that country. Where does the international tribunal fall into that? They represent the WTO, not a foreign government and that flies in the face of international relations throughout the history of humanity. It flies in the face if you expect sovereign governments representing their people to interact. It doesn't however fly in the face of the internationalists agenda to do away with sovereign governments and establish supranational bodies peopled with the hand picked representatives from transnational corporations to govern us "little people", the once sovereign citizens of the United States of America.

[Moral Hazard]

"It is not the purpose of the United States government to raise the standard of living in a foreign country. If you say that this agreement does that, then it isn't a trade agreement, its a foreign aid agreement."

Are you utterly ignorant as to what the affects of free trade are? Or do you believe that if an economic policy improves the lives of the citizens of another country the U.S. shouldn't be involved, even if that same policy improves the lives of U.S. citizens?

[hedgetrimmer]

Are you utterly ignorant as to what the affects of free trade are?

When did "Free trade" become foreign aid? When did the US congress abdicate their authority to dispense foreign aid to the US Trade representatives office?

No matter how much charity you may want to give the world, it isn't the place of our government to do it, and it isn't the purpose of Congress to use our tax money for charity. Its even worse when the supposed charity is transnational corporations who want power, water and road infrastructure built for them so they can do business at the expense of US taxpayers.

So which is it? Is CAFTA a trade agreement that lowers tariffs, or is it a foreign aid agreement that gives our money away unconsititutionally, or is it a tool to implement global socialist sustainable development on the unsuspecting citizens of CAFTA countries?

[Paul Ross]

Why are you utterly ignorant of the give-away provisions in CAFTA? What is your problem? Why aren't you concerned about them? Have you never read the mission of this site?

I have one thing to tell you:

I Hope you're not one of those damned bleeping globalist One-Worlders, but IF YOU ARE:

STAY THE FRACK OUT OF MY WALLET.

AND GET YOUR THIEVING REDISTRIBUTIONIST MITTS OFF OF ME AND MY PROPERTY!

.

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." --Samuel Adams

[Paul Ross]

You forget:

The U.S. Constitution, Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Note, the point is to form a more perfect union, not a bag of "sovereign" consumers sucking on the teat of an INTERNATIONAL trade hag!!! Nor to surrender our LIBERTY to the same, all the while calling that very surrender, 'freedom'!!!