Replies

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).

Look, I gave you the link to the official document, it's in legalese. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't pretend to be, are you? But if several U.S. Congressmen are publicly saying that this "managed trade agreement" authorizes UN tribunals, than I believe they are probably telling the truth.

You say that this document does NOT authorize tribunals, I believe it does. The onus is not entirely on me to prove my point anymore then it is on you to prove yours.

Here's what I see in the official language, if I'm wrong then I apologize, for my misunderstanding the bureaucratic language.

This is from 10:19 of official CAFTA document:

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

1. Unless the disputing parties otherwise agree, the tribunal shall comprise three arbitrators, one arbitrator appointed by each of the disputing parties and the third, who shall be the presiding arbitrator, appointed by agreement of the disputing parties. 1. Unless the disputing parties otherwise agree, the tribunal shall comprise three arbitrators, one arbitrator appointed by each of the disputing parties and the third, who shall be the presiding arbitrator, appointed by agreement of the disputing parties.
2. The Secretary-General shall serve as appointing authority for an arbitration under this Section. 2. The Secretary-General shall serve as appointing authority for an arbitration under this Section.
3. If a tribunal has not been constituted within 75 days from the date that a claim is submitted to arbitration under this Section, the Secretary-General...

A final note to you.
Your bold highlighting, with emphasis on words like *you*, and etc, indicate you're getting angry. Take a chill pill, FRiend....

I'm not personally attacking you. I'm merely stating what has been brought up by several Republican Congressman, including Rep. Tancredo. I know you don't like him; that's fine. But he has a 100% ACU conservative voting record.

If that so upsets you, then well, let's just discontinue this *conversation*.

Take care

1rudeboy:>"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)."<

All right.Thanks for the info, I'll research it.
I'll have to concede this one to you. As I said, I'm not a lawyer, but the legalese info I've read appears to pertain tribunals that will be run by the U.N. It mentions the Secretary General...but some serious questions, and I'm not trying to be facetious:

Are you saying they will NOT be?
And are you saying with absolute certainty, that these tribunals mentioned in Chap 10 will not give foreign investors power to challenge our laws in a UN tribunal?

Do you believe that these Congressman who are saying that these things are lying?
IE Tancrdo's statements here:
"This agreement will allow foreign companies to challenge our immigration policies in international CAFTA tribunals and argue that the laws impede their ability to access the U.S. service sector. That would force Congress to change our immigration laws, or subject our businesses to trade sanctions."

"If this agreement is approved, the 'exclusive' power of Congress to regulate immigration policy will be subjugated to the whim of international tribunals - the same way that Congress ceded its once supreme Constitutional authority to 'regulate commerce with foreign nations' to the WTO."~ Rep Tom Tancredo

Tancredo Blasts CAFTA’s Back Door Immigration Provisions

and as to your comment, Toddsterpatriot:
RE:"And now I'm running away. LOL!!"

I didn't post any smarmy comments to you, or 1rudeboy.
This forum used to be a lot more civil. 1rudeboy did reply with a post of substance (#48)...I'll concede that I need to research this more.

However, Toddsterpatriot: What have you contributed here, that is of any substance, and is worth responding to, FRiend? .
I perused the entire thread, and couldn't find anything.