Replies

"Your reply says nothing of "compensation," or "property rights," and only marginally relates to the mechansim for dispute resolution contained in CAFTA. In other words, regardless of how rude you believe I am you have failed to respond, as I suspected you would. Perhaps it would have been easier to simply call your assertions false, but politely?"

http://www.sice.oas.org/TPCStudies/USCAFTAChl_e/Matrix10.htm

- Well, the establishment of international tribunals is there in the legalese, Chapter 10. I thought that was what you originally challenged me about. There's the link, research it, and refute it if you think it's incorrect:
http://www.sice.oas.org/TPCStudies/USCAFTAChl_e/Matrix10.htm

Several Republican congressman also say authorization for tribunals are in there. You can call them (and me) moonbats, if you so choose.
I suppose doing so, makes it easier to ignore the assertion about tribunals being conducted under the auspices of the U.N.

http://www.sice.oas.org/TPCStudies/USCAFTAChl_e/Matrix10.htm

>"In any case, I am more concerned with your notion that GE will be placed at some sort of a competitive disadvantage by the passage of CAFTA."<

_Perhaps you misunderstand my comments. I don't wish to see our corporations hampered, or forced offshore, by excessive regulation.
I merely used GE as an example, in that; just because a business wants to do something, it doesn't mean that it has the best interests of America, in it's business plans.

It's not in America's best interests to have companies like Loral and Hughes giving supercomputers or satellite launch technology to Communist China....and it's ALSO not in the interests of our country to give foreign corps the power to take our laws to an international tribunal.

If you want to bring business back to America, then support the abolishment of the federal income tax system, including abolishing all corporate tax.

I support the FairTax, and elimination of all corporate tax, which would bring more offshore business back to this country then all the "managed trade agreements" (1.) in the world.

1. (Milton Friedman said that these trade agreements are not "free trade agreements, but "managed trade agreements.)

There's the link, research it, and refute it if you think it's incorrect . . . .

Oh, please. You asserted that foreign corporations are granted greater property rights than U.S. citizens, and are empowered to go to United Nations and World Bank tribunals as a result of the CAFTA Agreement. I'm telling you that is not the case. I do not have to "refute" anything until you take a stab at proving your assertions in the first place. You made them.

"It's in Chapter 10, go look it up." I assert the Earth is flat, go look it up. I don't have to explain how I came to my conclusion, but simply wait for you to refute it. What a joke. ROFLMAO

_____
In order to leap-frog over your rhetorical "process," here is a nice little .pdf from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative that pretty much blows you out of the water. Need I remind you that this very thread concerns the inability to properly navigate that website?

Allegation: CAFTA would submit the U.S. to the jurisdiction of international tribunals established under the auspices of the United Nations or World Bank, and would allow those UN/World Bank Tribunals to order payment of U.S. taxpayer dollars to foreign investors.
FACT: The United States has never lost a decision or paid a penny under an investor-state arbitration panel under NAFTA or any other international trade or investment agreement. Moreover, if a panel ever did rule against the United States, it would have no authority to order the government to modify any law, regulation or practice. See CAFTA Article 10.26.1 (limiting awards to monetary damages and restitution of property only).
Nevertheless, the Administration took steps in CAFTA and other recent FTAs to improve the investor-state arbitration process. For example, the ability of governments to control the interpretation of the investment provisions has been strengthened by allowing them to review draft decisions (CAFTA Article 10.20.9) and giving them the ability to issue interpretations of the text that are binding on panels (CAFTA Article 10.20.2). New procedures have also been included, based on U.S. court rules, to dismiss frivolous claims (CAFTA Article 10.20.4) and to ensure full transparency of the proceedings by opening briefs and hearings to the public (CAFTA Article 10.21) and allowing amicus submissions (CAFTA Article 10.20.3).
Allegation: CAFTA, like NAFTA, would give more rights to foreign investors operating in the U.S. than American citizens and firms enjoy under our own Constitution.
FACT: In fact, Trade Promotion Authority directs USTR to negotiate investment provisions that do not provide greater substantive rights to foreign investors than are provided under U.S. law to U.S. investors, and existing state laws are specifically carved out of key provisions of the investment chapter. (See, TPA § 2102(b)(3).) This objective was followed in CAFTA, and the Administration has clarified investment provisions since NAFTA. For example, CAFTA provides clearer guidance on what constitutes a compensable indirect expropriation by drawing directly on principles developed by the Supreme Court in interpreting the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. See CAFTA Annex 10-C. The Administration further clarified that the guarantee of fair and equitable treatment includes procedural due process in line with that granted by the principal legal systems of the world, including the United States. See CAFTA Article 10.5.2(a).